ArticleJournal of medical ethics2022
Reproductive carrier screening: responding to the eugenics critique.
Article in Journal of medical ethics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 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
16 citing papers in PubMed.
- Personal values, professional responsibilities and non-invasive prenatal testing: reflections of genetic counsellors in Australia.Journal of community genetics · 2026Article
- Reproductive Genetic Carrier Screening in Romania: A Couple-Based Study of Pathogenic Molecular Variants.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Article
- Diagnostic yield of expanded carrier screening of a multi-ethnic population in yunnan, China.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Review
- Beyond severity: utility as a criterion for setting the scope of RGCS.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2025Article
- Considering severity in the design of reproductive genetic carrier screening programs: screening for severe conditions.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2025Article
- Unpacking the notion of "serious" genetic conditions: towards implementation in reproductive decision-making?European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2025Review
- Screening embryos for polygenic disease risk: a review of epidemiological, clinical, and ethical considerations.Human reproduction update · 2024Review
- Confronting the Legacy of Eugenics and Ableism: Towards Anti-Ableist Bioscience Education.CBE life sciences education · 2024Article
- Societal implications of expanded universal carrier screening: a scoping review.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2023Article
- Genetic Counsellors play a key role in supporting ethically responsible expanded universal carrier screening.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2023Article
- Views of reproductive genetic carrier screening participants regarding screening for genes associated with non-syndromic hearing loss.Prenatal diagnosis · 2022Article
- The Australian Reproductive Genetic Carrier Screening Project (Mackenzie's Mission): Design and Implementation.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Article
- Preconception carrier screening as an alternative reproductive option prior to newborn screening for severe recessive disorders.Medizinische Genetik : Mitteilungsblatt des Berufsverbandes Medizinische Genetik e.V · 2022Article
- Costs, burdens and the prevention of genetic disorders: what role for professional influence?Journal of community genetics · 2021Article
- Perspectives of people with cystic fibrosis considering parenthood surrounding preconception and prenatal genetic counseling and testing.Therapeutic advances in respiratory diseaseArticle
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Reproductive genetic carrier screening (RCS), when offered to anyone regardless of their family history or ancestry, has been subject to the critique that it is a form of eugenics. Eugenics describes a range of practices that seek to use the science of heredity to improve the genetic composition of a population group. The term is associated with a range of unethical programmes that were taken up in various countries during the 20th century. Contemporary practice in medical genetics has, understandably, distanced itself from such programmes. However, as RCS becomes more widespread, gains public funding and uses expanded gene panels, there are concerns that such programmes could be perceived as eugenic either in intent or outcome. The typical response to the eugenics critique of RCS is to emphasise the voluntary nature of both participating in screening and making subsequent reproductive choices. While safeguarding individuals' freedom to choose in relation to screening is essential, we consider this response inadequate. By examining the specific ethical wrongs committed by eugenics in the past, we argue that to avoid the perception of RCS being a form of eugenics it is essential to attend to the broader normative context in which reproductive decisions occur. Furthermore, ethical RCS programmes must recognise and respond to their potential to shift societal norms that shape individual reproductive choices.
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.