Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30771074›Full record

ArticleMedicine, health care, and philosophy2019

Just choice: a Danielsian analysis of the aims and scope of prenatal screening for fetal abnormalities.

Greg Stapleton, Wybo Dondorp, Peter Schröder-Bäck, Guido de Wert

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medicine, health care, and philosophy, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
3.6field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. A Capabilities Approach to Prenatal Screening for Fetal Abnormalities.Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy · 2019
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Greg StapletonDepartment of Health, Ethics and Society, GROW School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht University, 6200 MD, Maastricht, The Netherlands. greg.stapleton@maastrichtuniversity.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8009-3195
Wybo DondorpDepartment of Health, Ethics and Society, GROW School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht University, 6200 MD, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Peter Schröder-BäckDepartment of International Health, CAPHRI Care and Public Health Research Institute, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Guido de WertDepartment of Health, Ethics and Society, GROW School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht University, 6200 MD, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Maastricht University · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Developments in Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing (NIPT) and cell-free fetal DNA analysis raise the possibility that antenatal services may soon be able to support couples in non-invasively testing for, and diagnosing, an unprecedented range of genetic disorders and traits coded within their unborn child's genome. Inevitably, this has prompted debate within the bioethics literature about what screening options should be offered to couples for the purpose of reproductive choice. In relation to this problem, the European Society of Human Genetics (ESHG) and American Society of Human Genetics (ASHG) tentatively recommend that any expansion of this type of screening, as facilitated by NIPT, should be limited to serious congenital and childhood disorders. In support of this recommendation, the ESHG and ASHG cite considerations of distribution justice. Notably, however, an account of justice in the organization and provision of this type of screening which might substantiate this recommendation has yet to be developed. This paper attempts to redress this oversight through an investigation of Norman Daniels' theory of Just health: meeting health needs fairly. In line with this aim, the paper examines what special moral importance (for Just health) screening for the purpose of reproductive choice might have where concerning serious congenital and childhood disorders in particular. The paper concludes that screening for reproductive choice where concerning serious congenital and childhood disorders may be important for providing women with fair opportunity to protect their health (by either having or not having an affected child).

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CareFemaleFetusHumansMoralsNoninvasive Prenatal TestingPregnancyPrenatal DiagnosisPublic HealthSocial JusticeEthicsJusticeNon-invasive prenatal testingPrenatal screeningPublic healthReproductive choice

Identifiers

PMID30771074
PMCPMC6842330
OpenAlexW2911270690

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.