Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Rethinking the 'right not to know'.

Rosalind McDougall1

  • 1Mansfield College, University of Oxford, UK.

Monash Bioethics Review
|April 20, 2005
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Using an ethical lens in frontline alcohol and other drug services: Enhancing access to care.

The International journal on drug policy·2026
Same author

Information, Access, and Stress: Ethical Insights From Parents' Views on Autonomy in Expanded Prenatal Testing.

Journal of bioethical inquiry·2026
Same author

The Ethical Justifiability of Patient Restraint in Hospitals: Moving to a Public Health Ethics Approach.

The Journal of law, medicine & ethics : a journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics·2026
Same author

Attending to the micro in resource prioritisation: ethical challenges for staff working with long waiting lists for elective surgery.

Monash bioethics review·2026
Same author

Response to Open Peer Commentaries: "Reproductive Autonomy in Light of Expanded Prenatal Genomic Testing".

The American journal of bioethics : AJOB·2026
Same author

Bridging disciplinary siloes: a scoping review on the inclusion and exclusion of pregnant and lactating populations in clinical research.

BMJ public health·2026

The concept of a "right not to know" genetic information is widely accepted but may not be a true right. This analysis suggests caution in using this phrase, as it could undermine ethical discussions on genetic testing and ignorance.

Area of Science:

  • Bioethics
  • Genetics
  • Philosophy of Law

Background:

  • The concept of a "right not to know" genetic information is prevalent in policy and genetic counseling.
  • This right is often viewed as a non-outweighable interest.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To critically examine the conceptual basis of the "right not to know" in genetic information.
  • To question whether this concept truly functions as a right within existing ethical and legal frameworks.

Main Methods:

  • Conceptual analysis of rights theory.
  • Examination of hypothetical scenarios involving the "right not to know" in genetic testing contexts.

Main Results:

  • The "right not to know" is argued to be inconsistent with conceptions of rights as prioritized, non-outweighable interests.
Keywords:
Analytical ApproachGenetics and Reproduction

Related Experiment Videos

  • For the "right not to know" to exist, rights must possess diminished moral weight.

    • Conclusions:

    • The phrase "right not to know" should be used with caution in discussions of genetic testing due to its potential to devalue rights.
    • Rethinking the framing of genetic ignorance beyond the "right not to know" is crucial for advancing ethical discourse.