↓ Skip to main content

Fostering caring relationships: Suggestions to rethink liberal perspectives on the ethics of newborn screening

Overview of attention for article published in Bioethics, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Readers on

mendeley
56 Mendeley
Title
Fostering caring relationships: Suggestions to rethink liberal perspectives on the ethics of newborn screening
Published in
Bioethics, February 2018
DOI 10.1111/bioe.12425
Pubmed ID
Authors

Simone van der Burg, Anke Oerlemans

Abstract

Newborn screening (NBS) involves the collection of blood from the heel of a newborn baby and testing it for a list of rare and inheritable disorders. New biochemical screening technologies led to expansions of NBS programs in the first decade of the 21st century. It is expected that they will in time be replaced by genetic sequencing technologies. These developments have raised a lot of ethical debate. We reviewed the ethical literature on NBS, analyzed the issues and values that emerged, and paid particular interest to the type of impacts authors think NBS should have on the lives of children and their families. Our review shows that most authors keep their ethical reflection confined to policy decisions, about for instance (a) the purpose of the program, and (b) its voluntary or mandatory nature. While some authors show appreciation of how NBS information empowers parents to care for their (diseased) children, most authors consider these aspects to be 'private' and leave their evaluation up to parents themselves. While this division of moral labor fits with the liberal conviction to leave individuals free to decide how they want to live their private lives, it also silences the ethical debate about these issues. Given the present and future capacity of NBS to offer an abundance of health-related information, we argue that there is good reason to develop a more substantive perspective to whether and how NBS can contribute to parents' good care for children.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 56 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 56 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 16%
Researcher 8 14%
Student > Bachelor 6 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 5%
Lecturer 3 5%
Other 11 20%
Unknown 16 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 10 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 16%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 13%
Social Sciences 5 9%
Psychology 3 5%
Other 6 11%
Unknown 16 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 June 2018.
All research outputs
#14,053,938
of 24,508,104 outputs
Outputs from Bioethics
#764
of 1,322 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#220,465
of 454,888 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Bioethics
#4
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,508,104 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,322 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.0. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 454,888 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 6 of them.