{"title":"生殖遗传咨询的平衡:测试的指导性,选择的非指导性。","authors":"Marie Kerguelen Feldblyum Le Blevennec","doi":"10.1111/bioe.70007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In this paper, I defend two claims about best practices for genetic counselors advising patients in the reproductive context. The first claim is that defenders of non-directiveness about selection against disability traits should support directiveness in favor of testing for disability traits. The second claim is that genetic counselors can be non-directive about selection against disability traits yet directive about testing for those traits-there is no tension between these two positions. So, it is open to defenders of non-directiveness about selection to be in favor of directiveness about testing, and in fact they should shift to the nuanced position I show is available to them, rather than adopting a monolithic approach advocating non-directiveness with respect to both testing and selection.</p>","PeriodicalId":55379,"journal":{"name":"Bioethics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Striking a Balance in Reproductive Genetic Counseling: Directiveness for Testing, Non-Directiveness About Selection.\",\"authors\":\"Marie Kerguelen Feldblyum Le Blevennec\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/bioe.70007\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>In this paper, I defend two claims about best practices for genetic counselors advising patients in the reproductive context. The first claim is that defenders of non-directiveness about selection against disability traits should support directiveness in favor of testing for disability traits. The second claim is that genetic counselors can be non-directive about selection against disability traits yet directive about testing for those traits-there is no tension between these two positions. So, it is open to defenders of non-directiveness about selection to be in favor of directiveness about testing, and in fact they should shift to the nuanced position I show is available to them, rather than adopting a monolithic approach advocating non-directiveness with respect to both testing and selection.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55379,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Bioethics\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Bioethics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.70007\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bioethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.70007","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Striking a Balance in Reproductive Genetic Counseling: Directiveness for Testing, Non-Directiveness About Selection.
In this paper, I defend two claims about best practices for genetic counselors advising patients in the reproductive context. The first claim is that defenders of non-directiveness about selection against disability traits should support directiveness in favor of testing for disability traits. The second claim is that genetic counselors can be non-directive about selection against disability traits yet directive about testing for those traits-there is no tension between these two positions. So, it is open to defenders of non-directiveness about selection to be in favor of directiveness about testing, and in fact they should shift to the nuanced position I show is available to them, rather than adopting a monolithic approach advocating non-directiveness with respect to both testing and selection.
期刊介绍:
As medical technology continues to develop, the subject of bioethics has an ever increasing practical relevance for all those working in philosophy, medicine, law, sociology, public policy, education and related fields.
Bioethics provides a forum for well-argued articles on the ethical questions raised by current issues such as: international collaborative clinical research in developing countries; public health; infectious disease; AIDS; managed care; genomics and stem cell research. These questions are considered in relation to concrete ethical, legal and policy problems, or in terms of the fundamental concepts, principles and theories used in discussions of such problems.
Bioethics also features regular Background Briefings on important current debates in the field. These feature articles provide excellent material for bioethics scholars, teachers and students alike.