Maya Sabatello, Audrey Chao, Beverly J Insel, Thomas Corbeil, Bruce G Link, Paul S Appelbaum
{"title":"精神病遗传本质主义和儿童监护程序中的耻辱:公众观点。","authors":"Maya Sabatello, Audrey Chao, Beverly J Insel, Thomas Corbeil, Bruce G Link, Paul S Appelbaum","doi":"10.1093/jlb/lsab026","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The introduction of behavioral, including psychiatric, genetic information in American courts has gained traction but raises concerns of undue influence on judicial outcomes. We conducted a vignette-based survey of a nationally representative sample of US adults to assess how evidence about a parent's psychiatric genetic makeup and explicit and implicit stigmatizing beliefs about psychiatric conditions may affect key decisions in child custody proceedings. Psychiatric genetic evidence did not affect public perspectives on custody decisions, but it increased the genetic essentialist understanding of psychiatric conditions (regardless of a diagnosis). Explicit stigma was associated with a preference to deny parents with a (or with an alleged) psychiatric condition joint custody. Our newly created Implicit Association Test identified an association between psychiatric conditions and perceived bad parenting. Research to identify effective interventions and educational programs to address genetic essentialism and to reduce bias against people, including parents, with psychiatric conditions is urgently needed.</p>","PeriodicalId":56266,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Law and the Biosciences","volume":"8 2","pages":"lsab026"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2021-08-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/f4/b8/lsab026.PMC8390126.pdf","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Psychiatric genetic essentialism and stigma in child custody proceedings: public views.\",\"authors\":\"Maya Sabatello, Audrey Chao, Beverly J Insel, Thomas Corbeil, Bruce G Link, Paul S Appelbaum\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/jlb/lsab026\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The introduction of behavioral, including psychiatric, genetic information in American courts has gained traction but raises concerns of undue influence on judicial outcomes. We conducted a vignette-based survey of a nationally representative sample of US adults to assess how evidence about a parent's psychiatric genetic makeup and explicit and implicit stigmatizing beliefs about psychiatric conditions may affect key decisions in child custody proceedings. Psychiatric genetic evidence did not affect public perspectives on custody decisions, but it increased the genetic essentialist understanding of psychiatric conditions (regardless of a diagnosis). Explicit stigma was associated with a preference to deny parents with a (or with an alleged) psychiatric condition joint custody. Our newly created Implicit Association Test identified an association between psychiatric conditions and perceived bad parenting. Research to identify effective interventions and educational programs to address genetic essentialism and to reduce bias against people, including parents, with psychiatric conditions is urgently needed.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":56266,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Law and the Biosciences\",\"volume\":\"8 2\",\"pages\":\"lsab026\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-08-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/f4/b8/lsab026.PMC8390126.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Law and the Biosciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsab026\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2021/7/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Law and the Biosciences","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsab026","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/7/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Psychiatric genetic essentialism and stigma in child custody proceedings: public views.
The introduction of behavioral, including psychiatric, genetic information in American courts has gained traction but raises concerns of undue influence on judicial outcomes. We conducted a vignette-based survey of a nationally representative sample of US adults to assess how evidence about a parent's psychiatric genetic makeup and explicit and implicit stigmatizing beliefs about psychiatric conditions may affect key decisions in child custody proceedings. Psychiatric genetic evidence did not affect public perspectives on custody decisions, but it increased the genetic essentialist understanding of psychiatric conditions (regardless of a diagnosis). Explicit stigma was associated with a preference to deny parents with a (or with an alleged) psychiatric condition joint custody. Our newly created Implicit Association Test identified an association between psychiatric conditions and perceived bad parenting. Research to identify effective interventions and educational programs to address genetic essentialism and to reduce bias against people, including parents, with psychiatric conditions is urgently needed.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Law and the Biosciences (JLB) is the first fully Open Access peer-reviewed legal journal focused on the advances at the intersection of law and the biosciences. A co-venture between Duke University, Harvard University Law School, and Stanford University, and published by Oxford University Press, this open access, online, and interdisciplinary academic journal publishes cutting-edge scholarship in this important new field. The Journal contains original and response articles, essays, and commentaries on a wide range of topics, including bioethics, neuroethics, genetics, reproductive technologies, stem cells, enhancement, patent law, and food and drug regulation. JLB is published as one volume with three issues per year with new articles posted online on an ongoing basis.