Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
  • Print publication year: 2014
  • Online publication date: April 2014

13 - Ethical considerations in human reproductive genetics

References

1.Mikulić vs Croatia, February 7, 2002, no. 53176/99.
2. Nuffield Council on Bioethics. Donor conception: ethical aspects of information sharing: www.nuffieldbioethics.org/sites/default/files/Donor_conception_report.pdf
3. SawyerN. Sperm donor limits that control for the “relative” risk associated with the use of open-identity donors. Human Reprod 2011; 25: 1089–96.
4. TurkmendagI. The donor-conceived child’s “right to personal identity”: the public debate on donor anonymity in the United Kingdom. J Law Soc 2012; 39: 58–72.
5. Association of Biomedical Andrologists; Association of Clinical Embryologists; British Andrology Society; British Fertility Society; Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. UK guidelines for the medical and laboratory screening of sperm, egg and embryo donors. Hum Fertil (Camb) 2008; 11: 201–10.
6. Practice Committee of the American Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. Recommendations for gamete and embryo donation: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril 2013; 99: 47–62.
7. BrownS.Genetic aspects of donor conception. In Principles of Oocyte and Embryo donation. Ed. M V Sauer. London, UK: Springer Verlag, 2013.
8. MusciTJ, MoyerK. Prenatal carrier testing for fragile X: counseling issues and challenges. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am 2010; 37: 61–70.
9. WirojananJ, AngkustsiriK, TassoneFet al. A girl with fragile X premutation from sperm donation. Am J Med Genet A 2008; 146: 888–92.
10. RopersHH. On the future of genetic risk assessment. J Community Genet 2012; 3: 229–36.
11. De WertG. Preimplantation genetic testing: normative reflections. In Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis, 2nd edn. Ed. J Harper. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2009.
12. De WertG. Ethical aspects of prenatal testing and preimplantation genetic diagnosis for late-onset neurogenetic disorders: the case of Huntington’s disease. In Prenatal Testing for Late-onset Neurogenetic Diseases. Eds, G Evers-Kiebooms, M Zoeteweij, P Harper. Oxford, UK: BIOSScientific Publishers Ltd, 2002.
13. De Die-SmuldersCE, de WertGM, LiebaersIet al. Reproductive options for prospective parents in families with Huntington’s disease: clinical, psychological and ethical reflections. Hum Reprod Update 2013; 19: 304–15.
14. BredenoordAL, DondorpW, PenningsGet al. PGD to reduce reproductive risk: the case of mitochondrial DNA disorders. Hum Reprod 2008; 23: 2392–401.
15. De WertG. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis: the ethics of intermediate cases. Hum Reprod 2005; 20: 3261–6.
16. De WertG, LiebaersI, Van de VeldeH. The future (r)evolution of preimplantation genetic diagnosis/human leukocyte antigen testing: ethical reflections. Stem Cells 2007; 25: 2167–72.
17. DondorpW, De WertG, PenningsGet al. ESHRE Task Force on ethics and Law 20: sex selection for non-medical reasons. Hum Reprod 2013; 28: 1448–54.
18. WarrenMA, Gendercide: The Implications of Sex Selection. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, 1985.
19. GloverY. Choosing Children. Genes, Disability and Design. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2006.
20. RubioC, RodrigoL, MirPet al. Use of array comparative genomic hybridization (array-CGH) for embryo assessment: clinical results. Fertil Steril 2013; 99: 1044–8.
21. MastenbroekS.One swallow does not make a summer. Fertil Steril 2013; 99:1205–6.
22. BaartEB, MartiniE, EijkemansMJet al. Milder ovarian stimulation for in-vitro fertilization reduces aneuploidy in the human preimplantation embryo: a randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod 2007; 22: 980–8.
23. ESHRE Task Force on Ethics and Law 13. The welfare of the child in medically assisted reproduction. Hum Reprod 2007; 22: 2585–8.
24. HensK, DondorpW, HandysideAHet al. Dynamics and ethics of comprehensive preimplantation genetic testing: a review of the challenges. Hum Reprod Update 2013; 19: 366–75.
25. CousensNE, GaffCL, MetcalfeSAet al. Carrier screening for beta-thalassaemia: a review of international practice. Eur J Hum Genet 2010; 18: 1077–83.
26. RazAE, ViznerY. Carrier matching and collective socialization in community genetics: Dor Yeshorim and the reinforcement of stigma. Soc Sci Med 2008; 67: 1361–9.
27. De WertGM, DondorpWJ, KnoppersBM. Preconception care and genetic risk: ethical issues. J Community Genet 2012; 3: 221–8.
28. ACOG Committee. Opinion no. 486: update on carrier screening for cystic fibrosis. Obstet Gynecol 2011; 117: 1028–1031.
29. PriorTW. Professional Practice and Guidelines Committee: carrier screening for spinal muscular atrophy. Genet Med 2008; 10: 840–2.
30. CastellaniC, MacekM Jr, CassimanJJet al. Benchmark for cystic fibrosis carrier screening: a European consensus document. J Cyst Fibros 9: 165–78.
31. Human Genetics Commission. Increasing options, informing choice: a report on preconception genetic testing and screening, April 2011: //f.hypotheses.org/wp-content/blogs.dir/257/files/2011/04/2011.HGC_.-Increasing-options-informing-choice-final1.pdf