Testing times ahead: Non-invasive prenatal testing and the kind of community we want to be

Roger Brownsword; Jeff Wale

doi:10.1111/1468-2230.12355

Testing times ahead: Non-invasive prenatal testing and the kind of community we want to be

Roger Brownsword, Jeff Wale

Laws

Bournemouth University

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

22 Citations (Scopus)

175 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

This article reviews the Nuffield Council on Bioethics’ report on Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing (NIPT); and introduces two general questions provoked by the report – concerning, respectively, the nature and extent of the informational interests that are to be recognised in today’s ‘information societies’ and the membership of today’s ‘genetic societies’. The article also considers the role and nature of the Nuffield Council. While the Council’s report identifies a range of individual and collective interests that are relevant to determining the legitimate uses of NIPT, we argue that it should put these interests into an order of importance; we sketch how this might be done; and we suggest that, failing such a prioritisation of interests, the Council should present its reflections in a way that engages public debate around a number of options rather than making firm recommendations.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	646-672
Number of pages	27
Journal	Modern Law Review
Volume	81
Issue number	4
Early online date	4 Jul 2018
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.12355
Publication status	E-pub ahead of print - 4 Jul 2018

Access to Document

10.1111/1468-2230.12355

Testing Times Ahead Non_BROWNSWORD_Firstonline4July2018_GREEN AAMAccepted author manuscript, 370 KB

Cite this

@article{1e552c663fe94d7f84b0cd737d900f12,

title = "Testing times ahead: Non-invasive prenatal testing and the kind of community we want to be",

abstract = "This article reviews the Nuffield Council on Bioethics{\textquoteright} report on Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing (NIPT); and introduces two general questions provoked by the report – concerning, respectively, the nature and extent of the informational interests that are to be recognised in today{\textquoteright}s {\textquoteleft}information societies{\textquoteright} and the membership of today{\textquoteright}s {\textquoteleft}genetic societies{\textquoteright}. The article also considers the role and nature of the Nuffield Council. While the Council{\textquoteright}s report identifies a range of individual and collective interests that are relevant to determining the legitimate uses of NIPT, we argue that it should put these interests into an order of importance; we sketch how this might be done; and we suggest that, failing such a prioritisation of interests, the Council should present its reflections in a way that engages public debate around a number of options rather than making firm recommendations.",

author = "Roger Brownsword and Jeff Wale",

year = "2018",

month = jul,

day = "4",

doi = "10.1111/1468-2230.12355",

language = "English",

volume = "81",

pages = "646--672",

journal = "Modern Law Review",

issn = "0026-7961",

publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",

number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Testing times ahead

T2 - Non-invasive prenatal testing and the kind of community we want to be

AU - Brownsword, Roger

AU - Wale, Jeff

PY - 2018/7/4

Y1 - 2018/7/4

N2 - This article reviews the Nuffield Council on Bioethics’ report on Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing (NIPT); and introduces two general questions provoked by the report – concerning, respectively, the nature and extent of the informational interests that are to be recognised in today’s ‘information societies’ and the membership of today’s ‘genetic societies’. The article also considers the role and nature of the Nuffield Council. While the Council’s report identifies a range of individual and collective interests that are relevant to determining the legitimate uses of NIPT, we argue that it should put these interests into an order of importance; we sketch how this might be done; and we suggest that, failing such a prioritisation of interests, the Council should present its reflections in a way that engages public debate around a number of options rather than making firm recommendations.

AB - This article reviews the Nuffield Council on Bioethics’ report on Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing (NIPT); and introduces two general questions provoked by the report – concerning, respectively, the nature and extent of the informational interests that are to be recognised in today’s ‘information societies’ and the membership of today’s ‘genetic societies’. The article also considers the role and nature of the Nuffield Council. While the Council’s report identifies a range of individual and collective interests that are relevant to determining the legitimate uses of NIPT, we argue that it should put these interests into an order of importance; we sketch how this might be done; and we suggest that, failing such a prioritisation of interests, the Council should present its reflections in a way that engages public debate around a number of options rather than making firm recommendations.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85049606571&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/1468-2230.12355

DO - 10.1111/1468-2230.12355

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85049606571

SN - 0026-7961

VL - 81

SP - 646

EP - 672

JO - Modern Law Review

JF - Modern Law Review

IS - 4

ER -

Testing times ahead: Non-invasive prenatal testing and the kind of community we want to be

Abstract

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this