Literature DB >> 21426290

Newborn screening cards: a legal quagmire.

Diana M Bowman1, David M Studdert.   

Abstract

Newborn screening (NBS) programs are a well established and cost-effective method for early identification of genetic disorders. However, a raft of legal questions surrounds the collection, storage, ownership and secondary use of NBS cards. The absence of clear legal rules governing NBS programs in Australia means that there are few straightforward answers to these questions. A series of controversial incidents have exposed this uncertainty in Australia, and remarkably similar controversies have occurred in the United States and European Union. We review the situation, using Victoria as a case study. We also make the case for a dedicated regulatory regime for NBS programs, arguing that the lack of such a regime threatens public trust and the robust operation of NBS programs in Australia. New rules would likely introduce stricter requirements for informed consent at the point of blood collection than has been the norm to date. However, the scope for use of cards in research could expand rather than contract, and it may be possible to reduce the risk that vast card archives will need to be destroyed in response to future public outcries.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21426290     DOI: 10.5694/j.1326-5377.2011.tb02985.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med J Aust        ISSN: 0025-729X            Impact factor:   7.738


  5 in total

Review 1.  Newborn bloodspot screening policy framework for Australia.

Authors:  Peter O'Leary; Susannah Maxwell
Journal:  Australas Med J       Date:  2015-09-30

Review 2.  The promise and challenges of blood spot methylomics.

Authors:  Sreeram V Ramagopalan; Vardhman K Rakyan
Journal:  Epigenetics       Date:  2013-06-19       Impact factor: 4.528

3.  Human identification: a review of methods employed within an Australian coronial death investigation system.

Authors:  Soren Blau; Jeremy Graham; Lyndall Smythe; Samantha Rowbotham
Journal:  Int J Legal Med       Date:  2020-11-11       Impact factor: 2.686

4.  Digital health promotion: promise and peril.

Authors:  Amanda Koh; De Wet Swanepoel; Annie Ling; Beverly Lorraine Ho; Si Ying Tan; Jeremy Lim
Journal:  Health Promot Int       Date:  2021-12-13       Impact factor: 2.483

5.  Forensic uses of research biobanks: should donors be informed?

Authors:  Vilius Dranseika; Jan Piasecki; Marcin Waligora
Journal:  Med Health Care Philos       Date:  2016-03
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.