Abstract
Screening programmes are becoming increasingly popular since prevention is considered 'better than cure'. While earlier diagnosis may result in more effective treatment for some, there will be consequent harm for others due to anxiety, stigma, side-effects etc. A screening test cannot guarantee the detection of all 'abnormal' cases, therefore there will be false reassurance for some. A proper consideration of the potential benefit and harm arising from screening may lead to the conclusion that the programme should not be offered. A modified utilitarian approach may be used for allocation of scarce resources in health care. Ethics has an important role in this evaluation.
Full text
PDF
Selected References
These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
- Clarke A. Is non-directive genetic counselling possible? Lancet. 1991 Oct 19;338(8773):998–1001. doi: 10.1016/0140-6736(91)91849-p. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Clarke Angus. Response to: What counts as success in genetic counselling? J Med Ethics. 1993 Mar;19(1):47–49. doi: 10.1136/jme.19.1.47. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Dixon J., Welch H. G. Priority setting: lessons from Oregon. Lancet. 1991 Apr 13;337(8746):891–894. doi: 10.1016/0140-6736(91)90213-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Fraser F. C. The William Allan Memorial Award Address: evolution of a palatable multifactorial threshold model. Am J Hum Genet. 1980 Nov;32(6):796–813. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Skrabanek P. Why is preventive medicine exempted from ethical constraints? J Med Ethics. 1990 Dec;16(4):187–190. doi: 10.1136/jme.16.4.187. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]