Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33389383›Full record

ArticleHealth care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy2021

'We Should View Him as an Individual': The Role of the Child's Future Autonomy in Shared Decision-Making About Unsolicited Findings in Pediatric Exome Sequencing.

W Dondorp, I Bolt, A Tibben, G De Wert, M Van Summeren

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Patient Perspectives on Psychiatric Polygenic Risk Scores in Reproductive Decision-Making and Polygenic Embryo Screening.American journal of medical genetics. Part B, Neuropsychiatric genetics : the official publication of the International Society of Psychiatric Genetics · 2026
    Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Endocrine oncology (Bristol, England) · 2024
    Article
  5. 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

5 authors.

W DondorpDepartment of Health, Ethics and Society, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht University, De Byeplein 1, 6229 HA, Maastricht, The Netherlands. w.dondorp@maastrichtuniversity.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4052-7192
I BoltDepartment of Medical Ethics, Philosophy and History of Medicine, Erasmus Medical Centre, PO Box 2040, 3000 CA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
A TibbenDepartment of Clinical Genetics, Leiden University Medical Centre, Laan van Duivenvoorde 2-TO, 2252 AK, Voorschoten, The Netherlands.
G De WertDepartment of Health, Ethics and Society, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht University, De Byeplein 1, 6229 HA, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
M Van SummerenDepartment of General Pediatrics, University Medical Centre Utrecht, UMC Utrecht, PO Box 85090, 3508 AB, Utrecht, The Netherlands.

Funding

ZonMw 70-73000-98-047
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In debates about genetic testing of children, as well as about disclosing unsolicited findings (UFs) of pediatric exome sequencing, respect for future autonomy should be regarded as a prima facie consideration for not taking steps that would entail denying the future adult the opportunity to decide for herself about what to know about her own genome. While the argument can be overridden when other, morally more weighty considerations are at stake, whether this is the case can only be determined in concrete cases. Importantly, when children grow into adolescents, respect for future autonomy will have to give way to respecting their emerging autonomy. When pediatric exome sequencing is done for complex conditions not involving developmental delay, respect for the child's future or emerging autonomy should be a primary consideration for those charged with deciding on behalf of the child. Building on what Emanuel and Emanuel have termed the 'deliberative model' of shared decision making, we argue that if parents fail to give these considerations their due, professionals should actively invite them to do so. Taking a directive stance may be needed in order to make sure that the future or emerging autonomy of the child are duly considered in the decision-making process, but also to help the parents and themselves to shape their respective roles as responsible care-givers.

Indexed as

Decision Making, SharedExomeAdolescentChildDecision MakingFemaleGenetic TestingHumansMaleParentsClinical sequencingEthicsFuture autonomyPediatricsShared decision makingUnsollicited findings

Identifiers

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.