Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36048301›Full record

ArticleJournal of bioethical inquiry2022

The Directiveness that Dare Not Speak Its Name. Views and Attitudes of Polish Clinical Geneticists toward the Nondirectiveness Principle.

Weronika Chańska, Katarzyna Grunt-Mejer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of bioethical inquiry, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
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

2 authors.

Weronika ChańskaDepartment of Philosophy and Bioethics, Jagiellonian University Medical College, Michałowskiego 12, 31-126, Kraków, Poland. weronika.chanska@uj.edu.pl.ORCID 0000-0002-1456-8866
Katarzyna Grunt-MejerFaculty of Psychology and Law in Poznań, SWPS University of Social Sciences and Humanities, Kutrzeby 10, 61-719, Poznań, Poland.

Funding

Narodowe Centrum Nauki 2014/15/B/HS1/01651
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Nondirectiveness is widely regarded as an important principle of genetic counseling. However, numerous studies have indicated that the use of this principle and its content itself are subject to controversies. The present study aimed to verify how the nondirectiveness principle is defined by Polish geneticists, the extent to which it is considered the main principle in clinical practice, and the situations in which geneticists see the positive value of the directive action. Using quantitative and qualitative methods, the study compared the abstract declarations of the directiveness validity and the scope of this principle with the declaration of action in situations close to reality (case scenarios). The results showed that the high rank assigned to the nondirectiveness principle does not translate into the conviction about the absolute obligation to use it in clinical practice. Polish geneticists are inclined to restrict the scope of patients' choices when these are outside of their definition of medical standard. Strong medical paternalism manifests itself particularly in invasive prenatal diagnostics, where geneticists play the role of gatekeepers. In this study, we offer hypotheses about the sources of these attitudes by analyzing the current cultural and legal context of Poland.

Indexed as

AttitudeGenetic CounselingFemaleHumansPaternalismPolandPregnancyPrenatal DiagnosisAttitudesBeliefsClinical EthicsGenetic CounselorsNondirectivenessPrenatal Diagnosis

Identifiers

PMID36048301
PMCPMC9908632

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.