Literature DB >> 14618395

Ethical issues in newborn screening and the impact of new technologies.

Bridget Wilcken1.   

Abstract

Medical ethics is an integral part of medical practice. The general principles are well known: autonomy (the right to choose), beneficence (do good), non-maleficence (do no harm), and justice (be fair and equitable). In newborn screening these principles must be especially carefully applied, as the intervention, screening, has not been sought by the patient, but is a form of preventive medicine. In proposing a screening programme questions to be asked are: should we do it? (is there enough benefit, not too much harm?); can we do it? (do we have the technology and skill to find the cases sought); can we afford it? The first question, with its ethical implications, is often ignored. New issues have arisen with new technology, but underlying ethical themes are the same. Tandem mass spectrometry can be used to detect about 30 very rare disorders in a single test. Proving the benefit of this (and other screening tests) is difficult because randomised controlled trials seem impractical, because of power considerations, long follow-up time, and because there is already a perceived benefit. Best possible evidence of a lower order must be sought. In future, DNA microarray technology is likely to become sufficiently inexpensive to apply to newborn screening. It is difficult to predict all the future possibilities of DNA technology in this fast-moving field. Major ethical problems are likely with the ability to detect adult-onset disorders or susceptibility to these in babies. Under what circumstances would this be ethical? We need to start debating these issues.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Genetics and Reproduction; Health Care and Public Health

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 14618395     DOI: 10.1007/s00431-003-1355-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Pediatr        ISSN: 0340-6199            Impact factor:   3.183


  17 in total

Review 1.  Neonatal screening for sickle cell disease.

Authors:  C M Lees; S Davies; C Dezateux
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2000

Review 2.  A rapid and systematic review of the evidence for the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of irinotecan, oxaliplatin and raltitrexed for the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer.

Authors:  M Lloyd Jones; S Hummel; N Bansback; B Orr; M Seymour
Journal:  Health Technol Assess       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 4.014

3.  Reduced morbidity in cystic fibrosis.

Authors:  B Wilcken; G Chalmers
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1986-02-22       Impact factor: 79.321

4.  Evaluation of newborn screening for medium chain acyl-CoA dehydrogenase deficiency in 275 000 babies.

Authors:  K Carpenter; V Wiley; K G Sim; D Heath; B Wilcken
Journal:  Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed       Date:  2001-09       Impact factor: 5.747

5.  Neonatal screening for medium-chain acyl-CoA dehydrogenase deficiency.

Authors:  M Pourfarzam; A Morris; M Appleton; A Craft; K Bartlett
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2001-09-29       Impact factor: 79.321

6.  Four-year-old children with alpha 1-antitrypsin deficiency. Clinical follow-up and parental attitudes towards neonatal screening.

Authors:  T Sveger; T Thelin
Journal:  Acta Paediatr Scand       Date:  1981-03

7.  Screening newborns for inborn errors of metabolism by tandem mass spectrometry.

Authors:  Bridget Wilcken; Veronica Wiley; Judith Hammond; Kevin Carpenter
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2003-06-05       Impact factor: 91.245

8.  Parental response to repeat testing of infants with 'false-positive' results in a newborn screening program.

Authors:  J R Sorenson; H L Levy; T W Mangione; S J Sepe
Journal:  Pediatrics       Date:  1984-02       Impact factor: 7.124

9.  Homocystinuria due to cystathionine beta-synthase deficiency in Ireland: 25 years' experience of a newborn screened and treated population with reference to clinical outcome and biochemical control.

Authors:  S Yap; E Naughten
Journal:  J Inherit Metab Dis       Date:  1998-10       Impact factor: 4.982

10.  Neonatal screening for cystic fibrosis in Wales and the West Midlands: clinical assessment after five years of screening.

Authors:  S Chatfield; G Owen; H C Ryley; J Williams; M Alfaham; M C Goodchild; P Weller
Journal:  Arch Dis Child       Date:  1991-01       Impact factor: 3.791

View more
  5 in total

Review 1.  Efficacy of screening immune system function in at-risk newborns.

Authors:  Christopher J Pavlovski
Journal:  Australas Med J       Date:  2014-07-31

2.  Newborn Screening for Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia in India: What Do We Need to Watch Out for?

Authors:  R Kishore Kumar; Hari Das; Prakash Kini
Journal:  J Obstet Gynaecol India       Date:  2015-06-11

3.  Stakeholder attitudes towards the role and application of informed consent for newborn bloodspot screening: a study protocol.

Authors:  S G Nicholls; L Tessier; H Etchegary; J C Brehaut; B K Potter; R Z Hayeems; P Chakraborty; J Marcadier; J Milburn; D Pullman; L Turner; B J Wilson
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2014-11-24       Impact factor: 2.692

4.  Genomic newborn screening: public health policy considerations and recommendations.

Authors:  Jan M Friedman; Martina C Cornel; Aaron J Goldenberg; Karla J Lister; Karine Sénécal; Danya F Vears
Journal:  BMC Med Genomics       Date:  2017-02-21       Impact factor: 3.063

5.  Specific guidelines for assessing and improving the methodological quality of economic evaluations of newborn screening.

Authors:  Astrid Langer; Rolf Holle; Jürgen John
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2012-09-04       Impact factor: 2.655

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.