Literature DB >> 8500262

Attitudes towards prenatal diagnosis and selective abortion among patients with retinitis pigmentosa or choroideremia as well as among their relatives.

T Furu1, H Kääriäinen, E M Sankila, R Norio.   

Abstract

Genetic counselling endeavours to be nondirective. However, the availability of prenatal diagnosis may direct clients towards accepting and using these methods. It is time to investigate the attitudes of clients in order to monitor the psychological and social effects of new genetic techniques. As prenatal diagnosis was possible for choroideremia (C), but not for retinitis pigmentosa (RP) in 1988-89, we used a questionnaire to compare the attitudes of C and RP patients, their relatives and C carriers to prenatal diagnosis. The response rate was low (35%) and no significant differences between RP and C groups came to light. However, C carriers accepted prenatal diagnosis and also selective abortion more easily, but, on the other hand, they showed more uncertainty than did the other groups. This indicates that the availability of prenatal diagnosis may confuse those concerned. In general, about 60% of all the respondents had a positive attitude to the prenatal diagnosis of RP or choroideremia, though only about 30% would use if for abortion. Over 80% of all the respondents wanted to know the opinion of the genetic counsellor.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Empirical Approach; Genetics and Reproduction

Mesh:

Year:  1993        PMID: 8500262     DOI: 10.1111/j.1399-0004.1993.tb04463.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Genet        ISSN: 0009-9163            Impact factor:   4.438


  11 in total

1.  "Respect for autonomy" in genetic counseling: an analysis and a proposal.

Authors:  Mary Terrell White
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  1997-09       Impact factor: 2.537

Review 2.  The Finnish Disease Heritage III: the individual diseases.

Authors:  Reijo Norio
Journal:  Hum Genet       Date:  2003-03-08       Impact factor: 4.132

3.  Attitudes toward genetic counseling and prenatal diagnosis among a group of individuals with physical disabilities.

Authors:  E A Chen; J F Schiffman
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2000-04       Impact factor: 2.537

4.  Community involvement in developing policies for genetic testing: assessing the interests and experiences of individuals affected by genetic conditions.

Authors:  Sarah E Gollust; Kira Apse; Barbara P Fuller; Paul Steven Miller; Barbara B Biesecker
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2005-01       Impact factor: 9.308

5.  Decision-making through dialogue: reconfiguring autonomy in genetic counseling.

Authors:  M T White
Journal:  Theor Med Bioeth       Date:  1998-01

6.  Empirical evidence that genetic counseling is directive: where do we go from here?

Authors:  B A Bernhardt
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  1997-01       Impact factor: 11.025

7.  Disability rights, prenatal diagnosis and eugenics: a cross-cultural view.

Authors:  Aviad E Raz
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 2.537

8.  Disability Experiences and Perspectives Regarding Reproductive Decisions, Parenting, and the Utility of Genetic Services: a Qualitative Study.

Authors:  C Roadhouse; C Shuman; K Anstey; K Sappleton; D Chitayat; E Ignagni
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2018-06-16       Impact factor: 2.537

9.  "To perpetuate blindness!": attitudes of UK patients with inherited retinal disease towards genetic testing.

Authors:  Barbara Potrata; Martin McKibbin; Jennifer Nw Lim; Jenny Hewison
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2013-12-24

10.  Understanding the impact of genetic testing for inherited retinal dystrophy.

Authors:  Ryan Combs; Marion McAllister; Katherine Payne; Jo Lowndes; Sophie Devery; Andrew R Webster; Susan M Downes; Anthony T Moore; Simon Ramsden; Graeme Black; Georgina Hall
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2013-02-13       Impact factor: 4.246

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.