Informed Consent Should Be a Required Element for Newborn Screening, Even for Disorders with High Benefit-Risk Ratios. Issue 2 (2016)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Fost, Norman
• Editors: Sade, Robert M.
• Is Part Of: Journal of law, medicine & ethics. Volume 44:Issue 2(2016)
• Page Start: 241
• Page End: 255
• Publication Date: 2016
• Subjects: Medical laws and legislation -- United States -- Periodicals; Medical care -- Law and legislation -- United States -- Periodicals; Medical ethics -- Periodicals; Jurisprudence -- Periodicals; Legislation, Medical -- Periodicals; Legislation, Nursing -- Periodicals; Ethics -- Periodicals; Forensic Medicine -- Periodicals; Nursing -- Periodicals; Medicine -- Periodicals; Societies -- Periodicals; Medical care -- Law and legislation; Medical ethics; Medical laws and legislation; United States; Periodicals; 344.73041
• DOI: 10.1177/1073110516654118
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1073-1105

Abstract

Abstract : Over-enthusiastic newborn screening has often caused substantial harm and has been imposed on the public without adequate information on benefits and risks and without parental consent. This problem will become worse when genomic screening is implemented. For the past 40 years, there has been broad agreement about the criteria for ethically responsible screening, but the criteria have been systematically ignored by policy makers and practitioners. Claims of high benefit and low risk are common, but they require precise definition and documentation, which has often not occurred, undermining claims that involuntary testing is justified. Even when the benefits and risks are well established, it does not automatically follow that involuntary testing is justified, a position supported by the widespread tolerance for parental refusal of immunizations and newborn screening.