Literature DB >> 11429719

Screening: the legal view.

J Eaden1, M K Mayberry, A Sherr, J F Mayberry.   

Abstract

Screening has become central to the effective prevention of several diseases, but implementation suffers from difficulties with targeting and rates of compliance. Such issues are also complicated by the need to consider legal provisions regarding confidentiality of patients and other human rights issues. Screening has been an inexact science in relation to, e.g., faecal occult blood testing for colorectal cancer, false positive and false negative tests for HIV, and there have been inadequate quality controls in breast cancer screening programmes. The public need to be made aware of what the screening programmes really offer, balanced against the expectations they may have. There needs to be a clearer understanding of the nature of the contractual and other legal rights of patients/consumers as against providers. A positive screening test may carry adverse consequences as well as benefits. It could alert an insurance company to a risk and lead to additional weighting or even outright rejection for life insurance policies. Job prospects may also be affected for employees. The method of informing patients in relation to screening and screening failure has already been considered by the courts. Realistic information about both screening and treatment efficiency needs to be offered to patients so that they can have a real understanding of what can and cannot be achieved by current science. The development of understanding of the human genome makes the need for clearer legislation in this are more urgent.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11429719     DOI: 10.1038/sj/ph/1900747

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Public Health        ISSN: 0033-3506            Impact factor:   2.427


  6 in total

Review 1.  The cost of questionnaire based research.

Authors:  J F Mayberry
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  2002-12       Impact factor: 3.710

2.  Screening and surveillance for asymptomatic colorectal cancer in IBD.

Authors:  A Forbes; S Gabe; J E Lennard-Jones; K Wilkinson
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2003-05       Impact factor: 23.059

3.  Experiences and decisions that motivate women at increased risk of breast cancer to participate in an experimental screening program.

Authors:  Michelle Proulx; Marie-Dominique Beaulieu; Christine Loignon; Marie-Hélène Mayrand; Christine Maugard; Nathalie Bellavance; Diane Provencher
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2009-02-14       Impact factor: 2.537

4.  Geography, private costs and uptake of screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm in a remote rural area.

Authors:  Sandra M Lindsay; John L Duncan; John Cairns; David J Godden
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2006-03-29       Impact factor: 3.295

5.  Risk of esophageal cancer in achalasia cardia: A meta-analysis.

Authors:  Clare L Gillies; Affifa Farrukh; Keith R Abrams; John F Mayberry
Journal:  JGH Open       Date:  2019-02-08

Review 6.  Prodromal Parkinson's disease: hype or hope for disease-modification trials?

Authors:  Philipp Mahlknecht; Kathrin Marini; Mario Werkmann; Werner Poewe; Klaus Seppi
Journal:  Transl Neurodegener       Date:  2022-02-21       Impact factor: 8.014

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.