| Title |
Different concepts and models of information for family-relevant genetic findings: comparison and ethical analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, April 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11019-015-9638-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Christian Lenk, Debora Frommeld |
| Abstract |
Genetic predispositions often concern not only individual persons, but also other family members. Advances in the development of genetic tests lead to a growing number of genetic diagnoses in medical practice and to an increasing importance of genetic counseling. In the present article, a number of ethical foundations and preconditions for this issue are discussed. Four different models for the handling of genetic information are presented and analyzed including a discussion of practical implications. The different models' ranges of content reach from a strictly autonomous position over self-governed arrangements in the practice of genetic counseling up to the involvement of official bodies and committees. The different models show a number of elements which seem to be very useful for the handling of genetic data in families from an ethical perspective. In contrast, the limitations of the standard medical attempt regarding confidentiality and personal autonomy in the context of genetic information in the family are described. Finally, recommendations for further ethical research and the development of genetic counseling in families are given. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 16 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 16 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 13% |
| Researcher | 2 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 13% |
| Lecturer | 1 | 6% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 3 | 19% |
| Unknown | 5 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 25% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 13% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 6% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 1 | 6% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 2 | 13% |
| Unknown | 5 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 03 July 2015.
All research outputs
#20,282,766
of 22,816,807 outputs
Outputs from Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy
#535
of 593 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#223,591
of 264,784 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy
#10
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,816,807 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 593 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 264,784 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.