Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32549638›Full record

ArticleThe Linacre quarterly2020

Prenatal Genetic Screening and Potential Complicity in Abortion: Considerations for Catholic Health Care.

Carolyn A Laabs

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Linacre quarterly, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 83% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. 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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Carolyn A LaabsNational Association of Catholic Nurses - USA, NY, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1940-7911
National Association of School Nurses · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Prenatal genetic screening (PGS) is commonplace in the United States and in some parts of the world. The commonly held rationale for screening is to respect patient autonomy and to either allow the mother the opportunity to prepare herself to parent a child with a genetic disorder or to abort. As a result, PGS combined with prenatal diagnostic testing followed by abortion has significantly reduced the number of babies born with Down syndrome, for example, and, furthermore, has raised concerns about discrimination against persons with disabilities and eugenics. Although Catholic teaching clearly prohibits PGS and testing when undertaken with the intention of abortion, screening routinely is performed in Catholic health care, sometimes without regard to intent. This essay explores the issue of PGS in Catholic health care and suggests the development of a policy designed to support morally legitimate use of screening through an educational and informed consent process and attestation as to intent so as to prevent abortion or at least avoid complicity in it. Although the issue applies to prenatal testing as well as screening and for a variety of disorders as well as gender, this essay limits itself to a discussion of first trimester screening and a focus on Down syndrome. Objections to such a policy are discussed.

Indexed as

AbortionCatholic health careCooperationDown syndromeEugenicsPrenatal genetic screening

Identifiers

PMID32549638
PMCPMC7273625
OpenAlexW2988901916

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.