Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-jswmv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T17:46:30.446Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Can Genetic Counseling Avoid the Charge of Eugenics?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 September 2008

Ruth Chadwick
Ruth Chadwick
Affiliation:
Centre for Professional Ethics University of Central Lancashire, Preston
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The claim that x is a form of eugenics is frequently used as if it were a knockdown argument against x. Genetic counseling has tried to distance itself from eugenics by presenting itself as facilitating choice. Its success in this attempt has been challenged. The argument however is not a knockdown one and there is scope for some mediation between autonomy and public health goals in genetics.

Information

Type
Genetic Services Eugenic Practices?
Information
Science in Context , Volume 11 , Issue 3-4 , Autumn-Winter 1998, pp. 471 - 480
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1998

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Chadwick, R. 1988. “Genetic Improvement.” In Ethics, Technology and Medicine, edited by Braine, D. and Lesser, H.. Aldershot: Avebury.Google Scholar
Chadwick, R. 1989. “Playing God.” Cogito 3: 186–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chadwick, R. 1992. Ethics, Reproduction and Genetic Control London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Chadwick, R. 1997. “The Status of Human Genetic Material —European Approaches.” In Human DNA: Law and Policy, edited by Knoppers, B. M., 55–62. The Hague: Kiuwer.Google Scholar
Chadwick, R. F. and Ngwena, C. G.. 1992. “The Development of a Normative Standard in Counselling for Genetic Disease: Ethics and Law,” Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law 4: 276–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chadwick, R., Coli, Daniela, Have, Henk te, Husted, Jørgen, Ngwena, Charles, Nørby, Søren, Pogliano, Claudio, and Shickle, Darren. 1993. Ethical Implications of Human Genome Analysis for Clinical Practice in Medical Genetics with Special Reference to Genetic Counselling: A Report to the Commission of the European Communities. Cardiff: Centre for Applied Ethics, p. 31.Google Scholar
Clarke, A. 1991. “Is Non-Directive Genetic Counselling Possible?” Lancet 338: 998–1001.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Elliott, R. 1993. “Identity and the Ethics of Gene Therapy.” Bioethics 7: 27–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eugenic Protection Law. [1948] 1993. Eibun-Horei-Sha Law Bulletin Series VIII Law No. 156.Google Scholar
Harper, P. 1988. Practical Genetic Counselling. 3rd ed. London: Wright.Google Scholar
Husted, J. 1997. “Autonomy and a Right Not to Know.” In The Right to Know and the Right Not to Know, edited by Chadwick, R., Levitt, M. A., and Shickle, D., 55–68. Aldershot: Avebury.Google Scholar
Kelly, T. E. 1986. Clinical Genetics and Genetic Counselling. Chicago: Year Book Medical Publishers.Google Scholar
Kevles, D. J. 1985. In the Name of Eugenics: Genetics and the Uses of Human Heredity. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Lee, R. 1989. “To Be or Not to Be: Is That the Question? The Claim of Wrongful Life.” In Birthrights: Law and Ethics at the Beginning of Life, edited by Lee, R. and Morgan, D., 172–94. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Magnus, D. 1997. “Lock out ‘Back Door Eugenics’.” Penn Bioethics 3: 1.Google Scholar
Morgan, D., and Lee, R. A. G. 1991. Blacksione's Guide to the Human Fertilisation & Embryology Act 1990. London: Blackstone Press.Google Scholar
Nuffield Council on Bioethics. 1993. Genetic Screening Ethical Issues. London: Nuffield Council on Bioethics.Google Scholar
Royal College of Physicians. 1989. Prenatal Diagnosis and Genetic Screening: A Report of the Royal College of Physicians. London: Royal College of Physicians.Google Scholar
Royal College of Physicians. 1991. Ethical Issues in Clinical Genetics. London: Royal College of Physicians.Google Scholar