Literature DB >> 15950627

Opinions about new reproductive genetic technologies: hopes and fears for our genetic future.

Andrea L Kalfoglou1, Teresa Doksum, Barbara Bernhardt, Gail Geller, Lisa LeRoy, Debra J H Mathews, John H Evans, David J Doukas, Nancy Reame, Joan Scott, Kathy Hudson.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To identify underlying beliefs and values shaping Americans' opinions about the appropriate use of new reproductive genetic technologies (RGTs), including preimplantation genetic diagnosis, hypothetical genetic modification, and sperm sorting for sex selection.
DESIGN: Scenarios with ethical dilemmas presented to 21 focus groups organized by sex, race/ethnicity, religion, age, education, and parental status.
SETTING: A city in each state: California, Colorado, Massachusetts, Michigan, and Tennessee. PARTICIPANT(S): One hundred and eighty-one paid volunteers, ages 18 to 68. INTERVENTION(S): None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Beliefs and values that shape participants' opinions about the appropriate use of new RGTs. RESULT(S): Regardless of demographic characteristics, focus group participants considered six key factors when determining the appropriateness of using RGTs: [1] whether embryos would be destroyed; [2] the nature of the disease or trait being avoided or sought; [3] technological control over "natural" reproduction; [4] the value of suffering, disability, and difference; [5] the importance of having genetically related children; and [6] the kind of future people desire or fear. CONCLUSION(S): Public opinions about the appropriate use of RGTs are shaped by numerous complementary and conflicting values beyond classic abortion arguments. Clinicians and policy-makers have the opportunity to consider these opinions when creating messages and crafting policy.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15950627     DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2005.01.090

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Fertil Steril        ISSN: 0015-0282            Impact factor:   7.329


  14 in total

1.  Attitudes Toward Pre-implantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD) for Genetic Disorders Among Potential Users in Malaysia.

Authors:  Angelina Patrick Olesen; Siti Nurani Mohd Nor; Latifah Amin
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2015-02-28       Impact factor: 3.525

2.  "Don't Want No Risk and Don't Want No Problems": Public Understandings of the Risks and Benefits of Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing in the United States.

Authors:  Megan Allyse; Lauren Carter Sayres; Taylor Goodspeed; Marsha Michie; Mildred K Cho
Journal:  AJOB Empir Bioeth       Date:  2015

3.  The decision-making process of genetically at-risk couples considering preimplantation genetic diagnosis: initial findings from a grounded theory study.

Authors:  Patricia E Hershberger; Agatha M Gallo; Karen Kavanaugh; Ellen Olshansky; Alan Schwartz; Ilan Tur-Kaspa
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  2012-03-07       Impact factor: 4.634

4.  Attitudes toward childbearing and prenatal testing in individuals undergoing genetic testing for Lynch syndrome.

Authors:  Akriti Dewanwala; Anu Chittenden; Margery Rosenblatt; Rowena Mercado; Judy E Garber; Sapna Syngal; Elena M Stoffel
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2011-09       Impact factor: 2.375

Review 5.  Pre- and post-test genetic counseling for chromosomal and Mendelian disorders.

Authors:  Jill Fonda Allen; Katie Stoll; Barbara A Bernhardt
Journal:  Semin Perinatol       Date:  2015-12-21       Impact factor: 3.300

6.  Religious Scholars' Attitudes and Views on Ethical Issues Pertaining to Pre-Implantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD) in Malaysia.

Authors:  A Olesen; S N Nor; L Amin
Journal:  J Bioeth Inq       Date:  2016-06-30       Impact factor: 1.352

Review 7.  Conceptualizing couples' decision making in PGD: emerging cognitive, emotional, and moral dimensions.

Authors:  Patricia E Hershberger; Penny F Pierce
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2010-01-08

8.  Conflict between values and technology: perceptions of preimplantation genetic diagnosis among women at increased risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer.

Authors:  Gwendolyn P Quinn; Susan T Vadaparampil; Lindsey M King; Cheryl A Miree; Sue Friedman
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2009-06-25       Impact factor: 2.375

9.  Reasons for being in favour of or against genome modification: a survey of the Dutch general public.

Authors:  S Hendriks; N A A Giesbertz; A L Bredenoord; S Repping
Journal:  Hum Reprod Open       Date:  2018-05-16

10.  What do you know about reproductive medicine?--results of a German representative survey.

Authors:  Yve Stoebel-Richter; Kristina Geue; Ada Borkenhagen; Elmar Braehler; Kerstin Weidner
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-12-03       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.