FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W159243417> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W159243417 endingPage "46" @default.
• W159243417 startingPage "46" @default.
• W159243417 abstract "1. Introduction Medical research focusing on genetic disorders and changes will occasionally generate knowledge about a research subject's possible carrier status and his or her current or future disease. Furthermore, the knowledge gained often pertains not only to the subjects but also to their biological relatives. In this paper, I address the question of how to treat personal information about disease and hereditary dispositions, resulting from research, including information that not only affects individuals, but can also be of interest to their biological relatives. First, I ask whether results should be returned at all. Perhaps the best way to keep difficulties at bay would be to avoid the issue. Second, if a case can be made for the desirability of returning information to the individual, I will ask whether this individual's biological relatives have a right or duty to know about familial information that may greatly affect their lives. How do we weigh the arguments? As Crouch and Elliott point out (1999:275), when it comes to decisions about the family, the tools of moral philosophy and the law have not always served us well, particularly when the question involves exposing one family member to risks for the sake of the other. I discuss how family ethics and a certain conception of autonomy challenge the often-undisputed notion of nondirectiveness. In this paper, I map the ethical terrain and provide reminders about important features, both moral and factual, that should guide any assessment of policymaking in this area. I do not try to propose what any individual should do in any particular situation. We need to remember that no ethical deliberation of the kind offered here can replace the subject's responsibility for his or her own actions. Facing up to responsibility and interacting with family members are identity-shaping actions and are thus closely connected to a person's innermost being. In Margaret Walker's words, in doing such things a person exercises moral self-definition (Walker 1987). 2. Should research results be returned to subjects? Those who answer this question in the negative do so on principle or because of misgivings concerning the results' usefulness. The first type of objection asserts that it is never necessary to return results to subjects, as this should not be the investigators' first priority. This argument merits discussion, and I will return to it below. Discussions of usefulness point to the quality of results. There is a concern that different types of errors could have crucial consequences, as individuals may change their entire lives because of a test result. With genetic information, an error may also greatly affect family (see, e.g. Fost and Farrell 1989). In the case of predictive information, it may be a long time before an error or a misinterpretation is recognized. One must be aware of the risk of errors due to situations such as misidentification or contamination of samples, incorrect testing procedures or transcription errors. A research laboratory seldom meets the same expectations regarding quality control as would a diagnostic laboratory. Therefore, strong requirements must be placed on the quality of results. This serves the initial purpose of limiting the results that may be considered for a return. Results from research are often very uncertain, difficult to interpret, or even not applicable to the individual. These shortcomings pertain to screening tests in general (Sasse 2002), not least since genetic prognostications apply mostly to the aggregate rather than individuals (Finkler et al. 2003:404). Hence, it can be said that information to be considered for disclosure must be such that is applicable to an individual, reasonably legible, and reliable--that it springs from a relatively certain research result (i.e., its sensitivity and specificity). To be a basis for information to be shared, knowledge should furthermore indicate that harm is foreseeable (the subject is at risk), that it is likely (e. …" @default.
• W159243417 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W159243417 creator A5041638164 @default.
• W159243417 date "2004-01-01" @default.
• W159243417 modified "2023-10-16" @default.
• W159243417 title "SHOULD RESULTS FROM GENETIC RESEARCH BE RETURNED TO RESEARCH SUBJECTS AND THEIR BIOLOGICAL RELATIVES?" @default.
• W159243417 cites W113805725 @default.
• W159243417 cites W1789047877 @default.
• W159243417 cites W1934017876 @default.
• W159243417 cites W1944826763 @default.
• W159243417 cites W1968852224 @default.
• W159243417 cites W1973551572 @default.
• W159243417 cites W1975306764 @default.
• W159243417 cites W1980881300 @default.
• W159243417 cites W1982604704 @default.
• W159243417 cites W1985901486 @default.
• W159243417 cites W1986479175 @default.
• W159243417 cites W1994323927 @default.
• W159243417 cites W2009193945 @default.
• W159243417 cites W2038416582 @default.
• W159243417 cites W2045174686 @default.
• W159243417 cites W2049281660 @default.
• W159243417 cites W2058938620 @default.
• W159243417 cites W2070229435 @default.
• W159243417 cites W2082458742 @default.
• W159243417 cites W2086858461 @default.
• W159243417 cites W2094136657 @default.
• W159243417 cites W2094378415 @default.
• W159243417 cites W2100880689 @default.
• W159243417 cites W2109630346 @default.
• W159243417 cites W2126490933 @default.
• W159243417 cites W2144914570 @default.
• W159243417 cites W2146287950 @default.
• W159243417 cites W2152693543 @default.
• W159243417 cites W2158651058 @default.
• W159243417 cites W2161701991 @default.
• W159243417 cites W2219759880 @default.
• W159243417 cites W2319077694 @default.
• W159243417 cites W2464433743 @default.
• W159243417 cites W2990939138 @default.
• W159243417 cites W3122927076 @default.
• W159243417 doi "https://doi.org/10.3176/tr.2004.1/2.04" @default.
• W159243417 hasPublicationYear "2004" @default.
• W159243417 type Work @default.
• W159243417 sameAs 159243417 @default.
• W159243417 citedByCount "12" @default.
• W159243417 countsByYear W1592434172015 @default.
• W159243417 countsByYear W1592434172017 @default.
• W159243417 countsByYear W1592434172020 @default.
• W159243417 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W159243417 hasAuthorship W159243417A5041638164 @default.
• W159243417 hasBestOaLocation W1592434171 @default.
• W159243417 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W159243417 hasConcept C149923435 @default.
• W159243417 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W159243417 hasConceptScore W159243417C144024400 @default.
• W159243417 hasConceptScore W159243417C149923435 @default.
• W159243417 hasConceptScore W159243417C15744967 @default.
• W159243417 hasIssue "1/2" @default.
• W159243417 hasLocation W1592434171 @default.
• W159243417 hasOpenAccess W159243417 @default.
• W159243417 hasPrimaryLocation W1592434171 @default.
• W159243417 hasRelatedWork W1710126152 @default.
• W159243417 hasRelatedWork W2053487507 @default.
• W159243417 hasRelatedWork W2077865380 @default.
• W159243417 hasRelatedWork W2134894512 @default.
• W159243417 hasRelatedWork W2748952813 @default.
• W159243417 hasRelatedWork W2765597752 @default.
• W159243417 hasRelatedWork W2789488587 @default.
• W159243417 hasRelatedWork W2899084033 @default.
• W159243417 hasRelatedWork W2931662336 @default.
• W159243417 hasRelatedWork W3049356719 @default.
• W159243417 hasVolume "8" @default.
• W159243417 isParatext "false" @default.
• W159243417 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W159243417 magId "159243417" @default.
• W159243417 workType "article" @default.