AJPH
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 72, Issue 12 1347-1352, Copyright © 1982 by American Public Health Association

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Purchase Article
Right arrow View Shopping Cart
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Faden, R
Right arrow Articles by Horn, S D
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Faden, R
Right arrow Articles by Horn, S D
A survey to evaluate parental consent as public policy for neonatal screening.

R Faden, A J Chwalow, N A Holtzman and S D Horn

Most states currently have laws which result in compulsory neonatal screening practices, despite a widespread consensus that participation in genetic services and programs should be voluntary. In 1976, Maryland adopted a regulation designed to respect parents' rights to refuse neonatal screening by imposing a parental consent requirement. The results of a study designed to evaluate the effects of this regulation are reviewed here. Many health care providers were unaware of the parental consent regulation. However, hospitals were generally in compliance with the technical stipulations of the regulations. There was little evidence that the regulation resulted in additional costs to the health care system, either in terms of hospital staff time or in terms of loss of efficiency in the number of infants screened. Mothers affected by the regulation were largely in favor of being informed about neonatal screening and learned a significant amount of new information from the disclosure process. They were almost evenly divided on whether they favored parental consent.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J Pediatr PsycholHome page
B. Wilfond and L. F. Ross
From Genetics to Genomics: Ethics, Policy, and Parental Decision-making
J. Pediatr. Psychol., July 22, 2008; (2008) jsn075v1.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 JAMAHome page
N. A. Holtzman
Expanding Newborn Screening: How Good Is the Evidence?
JAMA, November 19, 2003; 290(19): 2606 - 2608.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 PediatricsHome page
Committee on Bioethics
Ethical Issues With Genetic Testing in Pediatrics
Pediatrics, June 1, 2001; 107(6): 1451 - 1455.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Arch Pediatr Adolesc MedHome page
L. F. Ross and M. R. Moon
Ethical Issues in Genetic Testing of Children
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med, September 1, 2000; 154(9): 873 - 879.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 PediatricsHome page
Serving the Family From Birth to the Medical Home. Newborn Screening: A Blueprint for the Future - A Call for a National Agenda on State Newborn Screening Programs
Pediatrics, August 1, 2000; 106(2): 389 - 422.
[Full Text]

Home page
 ScienceHome page
P. Rowley
Genetic screening: marvel or menace?
Science, July 13, 1984; 225(4658): 138 - 144.
[Abstract] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1982 by the American Public Health Association