Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T04:44:49.128Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Currents in Contemporary Ethics: The Role of Parents in Expanded Newborn Screening

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Heather Harrell
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
JLME Column
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 37 , Issue 4 , Winter 2009 , pp. 846 - 851
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2009

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.)

References

See, e.g., The President's Council on Bioethics, The Changing Moral Focus of Newborn Screening: An Ethical Analysis by the President's Council on Bioethics, December 2008, at 2, 21, and 49; Botkin, J. R., “Assessing the New Criteria for Newborn Screening,” Health Matrix: Journal of Law-Medicine 19, no. 1 (2009): 163–185, at 174.Google Scholar
Baily, M. A. and Murray, T. H., eds., Ethics and Newborn Genetic Screening: New Technologies, New Challenges (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2009): at 1.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Fisher, L. E., “The Use of Tandem Mass Spectrometry in Newborn Screening: Australia's Experience and Its Implications for United States Policy,” Pacific Rim Law and Policy Journal 15 (2006): 137–167, at 142–143.Google Scholar
Id., at 143.Google Scholar
See The President's Council on Bioethics, supra note 1, at 21–22.Google Scholar
Andermann, A., Blancquaert, I., Beauchamp, S. and Déry, V., “Revisiting Wilson and Jungner in the Genomic Era: A Review of Screening Criteria over the Past 40 Years,” Bulletin of the World Health Organization 86, no. 4 (2008): 241–320, available at <http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/86/4/07–050112/en/> (last visited October 8, 2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Botkin, , supra note 1, at 165.Google Scholar
See The President's Council on Bioethics, supra note 1, at 18.Google Scholar
Id., at 21. For the full report of the American College of Medical Genetics, see Watson, M. S. et al., “Main Report: Newborn Screening Panel and System,” Genetics in Medicine 8, no. 5 (2006): 12S–252S.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See AZNewborn website, Evidence Statement: Child Health Promotion (Screening, Counseling, Immunization, Preventive Medication, and Treatment), available at <http://www.aznewborn.com/pdf/bus_grp_bloodspot.pdf> (last visited Sept. 20, 2009).+(last+visited+Sept.+20,+2009).>Google Scholar
See The President's Council on Bioethics, supra note 1, at 21; Botkin, , supra note 1, at 164; and Cipriano, L. E. et al., “The Cost-Effectiveness of Expanding Newborn Screening for Up to 21 Inherited Metabolic Disorders Using Tandem Mass Spectrometry: Results from a Decision-Analytic Model,” Value in Health 10, no. 2 (2007): 83–97, at 84.Google Scholar
See Fisher, , supra note 4, at 137.Google Scholar
See the President's Council on Bioethics, supra note 1, at 21–22 and National Newborn Screening and Genetics Resource Center, National Newborn Screening Status Report: Updated 10/09/09, available at <http://genes-r-us.uthscsa.edu/nbsdisorders.pdf> (last visited October 8, 2009). (last visited October 8, 2009).' href=https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=See+the+President's+Council+on+Bioethics,+supra+note+1,+at+21–22+and+National+Newborn+Screening+and+Genetics+Resource+Center,+National+Newborn+Screening+Status+Report:+Updated+10/09/09,+available+at++(last+visited+October+8,+2009).>Google Scholar
See the President's Council on Bioethics, supra note 1, at IX.Google Scholar
See Fisher, , supra note 4, at 138.Google Scholar
See The President's Council on Bioethics, supra note 1, at IX.Google Scholar
Id., at 15–16; Howell, R. Rodney, “Systems to Determine Treatment Effectiveness in Newborn Screening,” Health Matrix: Journal of Law-Medicine 19, no. 1 (2009): 155–161, at 157.Google Scholar
See Bailey, and Murray, , supra note 2, at 158–171.Google Scholar
See The President's Council on Bioethics, supra note 1, at 10.Google Scholar
Hedlund, G. L., Longo, N. and Pasquali, M., “Glutaric Acidemia Type 1,” American Journal of Medical Genetics Part C (Seminars in Medical Genetics) 142C, no. 2 (2006): 86–94, at 87–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Statements kept on file with author.Google Scholar
See Botkin, J. R. et al., “Newborn Screening Technology: Proceed with Caution,” Pediatrics 117, no. 5 (2006): 1793–1799; for information on vulnerable child syndrome, see Healthy Kids with Dr. Nieman, “The Vulnerable Child,” available at <http://www.healthykids.ca/secure/articles/thevulnerablechild.html> (last visited October 8, 2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Botkin, , supra note 1, at 168.Google Scholar
Id., at 174.Google Scholar
There are technical difficulties as well as different ethical problems with using some of these prenatal techniques. See Botkin, , supra note 1, at 178–179 (stating that current screens that test the level of biochemicals are ineffective in carrier adults) and Ross, L. Friedman and Acharya, K., “Policy Considerations in Designing a Fragile X Population Screening Program,” Genetic Medicine 9, no. 10 (2008): 711–713, at 712 (stating that “[t]he major disadvantage of implementing prenatal screening for FrX rather than NBS is the greater disparity in access to prenatal genetic testing than to neonatal screening”). However, the technical problems may be overcome now or in the future, and the ethical problems may prove to be lesser than those caused by mandatory screening.Google Scholar
See Botkin, , supra note 1, at 180.Google Scholar
See The President's Council on Bioethics, supra note 1, at 44.Google Scholar
See Fisher, , supra note 4, at 161–162.Google Scholar
See Botkin, , supra note 1, at 175.Google Scholar
Id. (citing Baily, M. A. and Murray, T. H., “Ethics, Evidence, and Cost in Newborn Screening: Would Resources Spent on Screening Be Better Spent Elsewhere?” Hastings Center Report 38, no. 3 [2008]: 23, at 28–29).Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id., at 174.Google Scholar
Cf. Ross, and Acharya, , supra note 26, at 712.Google Scholar
See The President's Council on Bioethics, supra note 1, at 48–49.Google Scholar
See, e.g., Hedlund, , Longo, and Pasquali, , supra note 27, at 87.Google Scholar
See The President's Council on Bioethics, supra note 1, at 75–76.Google Scholar
See Fisher, , supra note 4, at 159.Google Scholar
See Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 66 (2000) (stating “the interest of parents in the care, custody, and control of their childrenis perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by this Court”).Google Scholar
Rose, S. A., Note, “Kelo v. City of New London: A New Perspective on Economic Freedoms,” U.C. Davis Law Review 40, no. 5 (2007): 1997–2038, at 2012.Google Scholar
See The President's Council on Bioethics, supra note 1, at 22 (citing Wilson, M. G. and Jungner, G., Principles and Practice of Screening for Disease, World Health Organization, Geneva, 1968).Google ScholarPubMed
Spiering v. Heineman, 448 F.Supp.2d 1129 (D. Neb. 2006) (finding that strict scrutiny does not apply when challenging newborn screening laws as a violation of parents' fundamental rights) and Douglas City v. Anaya, 694 N.W.2d 601 (2004) (applying rational basis review to a challenge based on the First and Fourteenth Amendments).Google Scholar
See Spiering, 448 F.Supp.2d 1129 (finding that strict scrutiny does not apply when challenging newborn screening laws as a violation of parents' fundamental rights because “the right of children to safety” is a right of equal value, and the court should not “tilt the table in favor of the rights of parents and against the safety of children” by applying strict scrutiny).Google Scholar
See Spiering, 448 F.Supp.2d 1129 and Douglas City, 694 N.W.2d 601.Google Scholar
See Baily, M. A. et al., “The Proceedings of the Public's Health and the Law in the 21st Century; Fourth Annual Partnership Conference,” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 33, no. 4, Supplement (2005): 46–48, at 47.Google Scholar
See Botkin, , supra note 1 (stating that newborn screening programs should consider opportunity costs).Google Scholar
See Baily, and Murray, , supra note 2, at 313.Google Scholar
Cf. Bowen v. Gilliard, 483 U.S 587, 598 (1987) (speaking of court review of government spending for the general welfare).Google Scholar
In re Interest of Anaya, 276 Neb. 825 (2008).Google Scholar
See The President's Council on Bioethics, supra note 1, at 93.Google Scholar
See Baily, and Murray, , supra note 2, at 111–112 and The President's Council on Bioethics, supra note 1, at 73.Google Scholar
See The President's Council on Bioethics, supra note 1, at 90.Google Scholar
See National Newborn Screening and Genetics Resource Center, supra note 14.Google Scholar