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

Genetic testing in children

E W Clayton1

  • 1Department of Pediatrics, Vanderbilt Children's Hospital Outpatient Center, Nashville, TN, USA.

The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy
|June 1, 1997
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

Risks of compulsory genetic databases-Response.

Science (New York, N.Y.)·2019
Same author

Is it time for a universal genetic forensic database?

Science (New York, N.Y.)·2018
Same author

Attitudes of clinicians following large-scale pharmacogenomics implementation.

The pharmacogenomics journal·2015
Same author

Operational implementation of prospective genotyping for personalized medicine: the design of the Vanderbilt PREDICT project.

Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics·2012
Same author

False positive newborn screening results are not always benign.

Public health genomics·2010
Same author

Development of a large-scale de-identified DNA biobank to enable personalized medicine.

Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics·2008
Same journal

Zygotes are Persisting Organisms.

The Journal of medicine and philosophy·2026
Same journal

Ethical Examination of Genetic Enhancement from the Perspective of Confucian Human Dignity.

The Journal of medicine and philosophy·2026
Same journal

Reproducing Anachronism: Ageing, Fertility and Inequality in Reproductive Governance.

The Journal of medicine and philosophy·2026
Same journal

Genetic Moral Enhancement-A View Based on Mencius' Theory of Human Nature.

The Journal of medicine and philosophy·2026
Same journal

Egalitarian Justice and the Prevalence Principle in Human Genome Editing.

The Journal of medicine and philosophy·2026
Same journal

"It's Shaking Your Entire Construction as a Human Being": A Qualitative Analysis on Epistemic Injustice and Medical Gaslighting Consequences in Patients Living with Chronic Pain.

The Journal of medicine and philosophy·2026
See all related articles

Parents should have significant autonomy in decisions about genetic testing for their children, but physicians can override choices that pose a risk of harm. Parental rights decrease as children mature.

Area of Science:

  • Medical Ethics
  • Pediatric Genetics
  • Bioethics

Background:

  • Discussions on medical decision-making authority often involve complex ethical considerations.
  • The roles and rights of parents and physicians in pediatric healthcare require careful delineation, especially concerning genetic testing.
  • Navigating parental autonomy versus physician responsibility is crucial in pediatric medical ethics.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To explore the allocation of decision-making authority between parents and physicians regarding genetic testing for children.
  • To establish ethical guidelines for parental consent and physician judgment in genetic testing scenarios.
  • To analyze the factors influencing the balance of control in pediatric genetic testing decisions.

Main Methods:

  • Ethical analysis of decision-making frameworks in pediatric genetics.
Keywords:
Analytical ApproachGenetics and ReproductionProfessional Patient Relationship

Related Experiment Videos

  • Case vignette discussions illustrating the balance of control between parents and physicians.
  • Review of legal and ethical precedents in medical decision-making for minors.

    • Main Results:

    • Parents should have substantial discretion in deciding on genetic testing for their children.
    • Physicians retain the right to refuse testing if parental decisions risk significant harm to the child.
    • Refusal of testing is often justified for carrier status and late-onset disease predisposition.

    Conclusions:

    • The balance of decision-making power shifts, granting physicians more authority when significant harm is a risk.
    • Increasing deference to the child's views is appropriate as they mature.
    • Ethical frameworks must support both parental rights and the child's best interests in genetic testing.