ArticleJournal of medical ethics1999
Beware! Preimplantation genetic diagnosis may solve some old problems but it also raises new ones.
Article in Journal of medical ethics, 1999. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 37 citations in OpenAlex.
- Defining ethical criteria to guide the expanded use of Noninvasive Prenatal Screening (NIPS): Lessons about severity from preimplantation genetic testing.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2025Pooled it
- Mapping ethical, legal, and social implications (ELSI) of preimplantation genetic testing (PGT).Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2024Review
- To transfer or not to transfer: the case of comprehensive chromosome screening of the in vitro embryo.Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy · 2015Article
- Shared decision-making, gender and new technologies.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2007Article
- Molecular diagnostics in preimplantation genetic diagnosis.The Journal of molecular diagnostics : JMD · 2002Review
- Legal conceptions: regulating gametes and gamete donation.Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy · 2000Article
- Should doctors intentionally do less than the best?Journal of medical ethics · 1999Article
- Genetic technology: a threat to deafness.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 1998Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PIGD) goes some way to meeting the clinical, psychological and ethical problems of antenatal testing. We should guard, however, against the assumption that PIGD is the answer to all our problems. It also presents some new problems and leaves some old problems untouched. This paper will provide an overview of how PIGD meets some of the old problems but will concentrate on two new challenges for ethics (and, indeed, law). First we look at whether we should always suppose that it is wrong for a clinician to implant a genetically abnormal zygote. The second concern is particularly important in the UK. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act (1990) gives clinicians a statutory obligation to consider the interests of the future children they help to create using in vitro fertilisation (IVF) techniques. Does this mean that because PIGD is based on IVF techniques the balance of power for determining the best interests of the future child shifts from the mother to the clinician?
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.