ArticleBioethics2015
Prenatal screening, reproductive choice, and public health.
Article in Bioethics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) and pregnant women's views on good motherhood: a qualitative study.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2022Article
- The fetus in the age of the genome.Human genetics · 2022Article
- Implementing Expanded Prenatal Genetic Testing: Should Parents Have Access to Any and All Fetal Genetic Information?The American journal of bioethics : AJOB · 2022Article
- Ethics of Reproductive Genetic Carrier Screening: From the Clinic to the Population.Public health ethics · 2021Article
- Just choice: a Danielsian analysis of the aims and scope of prenatal screening for fetal abnormalities.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2019Article
- Women's perspectives on the ethical implications of non-invasive prenatal testing: a qualitative analysis to inform health policy decisions.BMC medical ethics · 2018Article
- Qualifying choice: ethical reflection on the scope of prenatal screening.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2017Article
- Ethical issues in preconception genetic carrier screening.Upsala journal of medical sciences · 2016Article
- Mitochondrial Replacement: Ethics and Identity.Bioethics · 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
Abstract
One widely held view of prenatal screening (PNS) is that its foremost aim is, or should be, to enable reproductive choice; this is the Pure Choice view. The article critiques this position by comparing it with an alternative: Public Health Pluralism. It is argued that there are good reasons to prefer the latter, including the following. (1) Public Health Pluralism does not, as is often supposed, render PNS more vulnerable to eugenics-objections. (2) The Pure Choice view, if followed through to its logical conclusions, may have unpalatable implications, such as extending choice well beyond health screening. (3) Any sensible version of Public Health Pluralism will be capable of taking on board the moral seriousness of abortion and will advocate, where practicable, alternative means of reducing the prevalence of disease and disability. (4) Public Health Pluralism is at least as well-equipped as the Pure Choice model to deal with autonomy and consent issues.
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.