ArticleThe Journal of medicine and philosophy2018
The Ethics of General Population Preventive Genomic Sequencing: Rights and Social Justice.
Article in The Journal of medicine and philosophy, 2018. 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.
- 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
- Genomic sequencing in newborn screening: balancing consent with the right of the asymptomatic at-risk child to be found.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2025Article
- Trust in prenatal exome sequencing for expectant families facing unexplained fetal anomalies.Prenatal diagnosis · 2024Article
- The promise of public health ethics for precision medicine: the case of newborn preventive genomic sequencing.Human genetics · 2022Review
- The Right Not to Know: some Steps towards a Compromise.Ethical theory and moral practice : an international forum · 2021Article
- Implementation considerations for offering personal genomic risk information to the public: a qualitative study.BMC public health · 2020Article
- The right not to know and the obligation to know.Journal of medical ethics · 2020Article
- Rethinking the "open future" argument against predictive genetic testing of children.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2019Article
- Age and perceived risks and benefits of preventive genomic screening.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Advances in DNA sequencing technology open new possibilities for public health genomics, especially in the form of general population preventive genomic sequencing (PGS). Such screening programs would sit at the intersection of public health and preventive health care, and thereby at once invite and resist the use of clinical ethics and public health ethics frameworks. Despite their differences, these ethics frameworks traditionally share a central concern for individual rights. We examine two putative individual rights-the right not to know, and the child's right to an open future-frequently invoked in discussions of predictive genetic testing, in order to explore their potential contribution to evaluating this new practice. Ultimately, we conclude that traditional clinical and public health ethics frameworks, and these two rights in particular, should be complemented by a social justice perspective in order adequately to characterize the ethical dimensions of general population PGS programs.
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.