Hoedemaekers R, ten Have H, Chadwick R
Catholic University of Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
J Med Ethics. 1997 Jun;23(3):135-41. doi: 10.1136/jme.23.3.135.
Three recent reports on genetic screening published in the United Kingdom, Denmark and the Netherlands are discussed. Comparison of the Dutch report with the Danish and the Nuffield reports reveals that the Dutch report focuses on the aim of enlarging the scope for action, emphasising protection of autonomy and self-determination of the screenee more than the other two reports. The three reports have in common that the main concern is with concrete issue such as stigmatisation, discrimination, protection of the private sphere and issues linked with labour and insurance. Some potential long term consequences, however, tend to be neglected or underestimated. These omissions are pointed out.
本文讨论了近期在英国、丹麦和荷兰发表的三篇关于基因筛查的报告。将荷兰的报告与丹麦及纳菲尔德报告进行比较后发现，荷兰报告侧重于扩大行动范围的目标，相较于其他两份报告，更加强调对受筛查者自主权和自决权的保护。这三篇报告的共同之处在于，主要关注点都集中在诸如污名化、歧视、私人领域保护以及与劳动和保险相关的问题等具体事项上。然而，一些潜在的长期后果往往被忽视或低估了。文中指出了这些疏漏之处。
