ArticleFamilial cancer2010
Genetic testing of children for familial cancers: a comparative legal perspective on consent, communication of information and confidentiality.
Article in Familial cancer, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Newborn Screening for the Detection of theCancers · 2021Article
- Rethinking the "open future" argument against predictive genetic testing of children.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2019Article
- "Both Sides of the Wheelchair": The Views of Individuals with, and Parents of Individuals with Friedreich Ataxia Regarding Pre-symptomatic Testing of Minors.Journal of genetic counseling · 2015Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Genetic testing of children is the subject of ethical and legal debate. On the one hand, the literature emphasises the personal interests and rights of the individual child. On the other, the interests of the parents and the family as a whole are discussed. English law relies by and large on a patient-centred approach where the child has some say about his/her medical care. The view reflected in Anglo-American guidelines, more specifically, is that testing is potentially harmful and may compromise the child's autonomy and confidentiality. This explains the reluctance to submit children to predictive genetic testing. An analysis of Israeli law, however, reflects a different approach, where the benefit to the child is defined more widely. This accords with the general communitarian position adopted by Israeli law, a legal position that reflects the duality of Israeli society in simultaneously promoting both fundamental human rights and family ethics. In practice, however, there may be little difference, as children in both jurisdictions have access to similar genetic services.
Indexed as
Identifiers
19609725What 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.