ArticleJournal of genetic counseling2005
Disability rights, prenatal diagnosis and eugenics: a cross-cultural view.
Article in Journal of genetic counseling, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Ethics of Human Embryo Editing via CRISPR-Cas9 Technology: A Systematic Review of Ethical Arguments, Reasons, and Concerns.HEC forum : an interdisciplinary journal on hospitals' ethical and legal issues · 2025Pooled it
- Pre- and post-testing counseling considerations for the provision of expanded carrier screening: exploration of European geneticists' views.BMC medical ethics · 2017Article
- Attitudes of cystic fibrosis patients and parents toward carrier screening and related reproductive issues.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2016Article
- State-offered ethnically targeted reproductive genetic testing.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2016Article
- "To perpetuate blindness!": attitudes of UK patients with inherited retinal disease towards genetic testing.Journal of community genetics · 2014Article
- Best ethical practices for clinicians and laboratories in the provision of noninvasive prenatal testing.Prenatal diagnosis · 2013Article
- Genetic counseling for prenatal testing: where is the discussion about disability?Journal of genetic counseling · 2012Article
- Disability advocacy and reproductive choice: engaging with the expressivist objection.Journal of genetic counseling · 2012Article
- Attitudes to genetic testing for deafness: the importance of informed choice.Journal of genetic counseling · 2006Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This paper considers the disability rights critique of genetic testing in the context of different communities and the issue of nondirectiveness. Despite the wide usage of genetic diagnosis in Israel, no public debate has emerged there concerning disability rights and prenatal testing. The common attitude that emerged from interviews with Israeli representatives of organizations "of'' and "for'' people with genetic diseases and congenital disabilities can be described as a two-fold view of disability: support of genetic testing during pregnancy, and support of the disabled person after birth. This two-fold view is explained as a secular construction situated in legal, economic and cultural contexts. The paper concludes by considering the implications of the "two-fold view'' of disability for the profession of genetic counseling. It is argued that awareness of the existence of conflicting views among clients--such as the view of the 'disability critique' as well as of the "two-fold view of disability''--should strengthen the significance of nondirectiveness.
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.