The Directiveness that Dare Not Speak Its Name. Views and Attitudes of Polish Clinical Geneticists toward the Nondirectiveness Principle

Author:

Chańska WeronikaORCID,Grunt-Mejer Katarzyna

Abstract

AbstractNondirectiveness is widely regarded as an important principle of genetic counseling. However, numerous studies have indicated that the use of this principle and its content itself are subject to controversies. The present study aimed to verify how the nondirectiveness principle is defined by Polish geneticists, the extent to which it is considered the main principle in clinical practice, and the situations in which geneticists see the positive value of the directive action. Using quantitative and qualitative methods, the study compared the abstract declarations of the directiveness validity and the scope of this principle with the declaration of action in situations close to reality (case scenarios). The results showed that the high rank assigned to the nondirectiveness principle does not translate into the conviction about the absolute obligation to use it in clinical practice. Polish geneticists are inclined to restrict the scope of patients’ choices when these are outside of their definition of medical standard. Strong medical paternalism manifests itself particularly in invasive prenatal diagnostics, where geneticists play the role of gatekeepers. In this study, we offer hypotheses about the sources of these attitudes by analyzing the current cultural and legal context of Poland.

Funder

Narodowe Centrum Nauki

Publisher

Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Subject

Health Policy,Health (social science)

Reference24 articles.

1. Bartels, D.M., B.S. LeRoy, P. McCarthy, and A.L. Caplan. 1997. Nondirectiveness in genetic counseling: A survey of practitioners. American Journal of Medical Genetics 72(2): 172–179.

2. Bosk, C. 1993. The workplace ideology of genetic counselors. In Prescribing our future: Ethical challenges in genetic counseling, edited by D. M. Bartels, B. LeRoy, and A. L. Caplan, 25–37. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

3. Braun, V., and V. Clark. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3(2): 77–101.

4. Brunger, F., and A. Lippman. 1995. Resistance and adherence to the norms of genetic counseling. Journal of Genetic Counseling 4(3): 151–167.

5. Caplan, A. 1993. Neutrality is not morality: The ethics of genetic counseling. In Prescribing our future: Ethical challenges in genetic counseling, edited by D.M. Bartels, B.S. LeRoy, and A.L. Caplan, 149–165. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

Cited by 3 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3