Genetic screening programs are based on assumptions and values that reflect the history of racial and social eugenics in the United States and Europe. They stigmatize individuals by shifting the focus from social, economic, and political decisions that affect the health of prospective parents, newborns, and workers to “bad genes,” that is, intrapersonal factors that are given the status of “causes” of disease. Prenatal screening, at best, can help the relatively few individuals who know that their future children are at risk for a particular inherited disease or disability; it has little positive value for the average person. Workplace genetic screening has not been shown to reduce occupational disease, but it has led to employment discrimination and has drawn attention away from controlling exposures to toxic chemicals in the workplace.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
GaltonF.Inquiries into Human Faculty, pp. 24–25. Macmillan, London, 1883. Cited in reference 5, p. 13.
2.
LudmererK. M.Genetics and American Society, p. 92. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 1972.
3.
HogbenL.Science for the Citizen, p. 1053. Norton, New York, 1938. Cited in reference 2, p. 93.
4.
LudmererK. M.Genetics and American Society. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 1972.
5.
ChaseA.The Legacy of Malthus. Knopf, New York, 1977.
6.
HallerM. H.Eugenics. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, NJ, 1963.
7.
ChoroverS. L.From Genesis to Genocide. M.I.T. Press, Cambridge, MA, 1979.
8.
ProctorR.Nazi science and medicine. Science for the People14(2): 15–20, March/April 1982.
9.
GlassB.Science: Endless horizons or golden age?Science171: 23–29, 1971.
10.
FletcherJ. F.Knowledge, risk, and the right to reproduce: A limiting principle. In Genetics and the Law II, edited by MilunskyA.AnnasG. J., pp. 131–135, Plenum, New York, 1980.
11.
EpsteinC. J.GolbusM. S.Prenatal diagnosis of genetic diseases. American Scientist65: 703–711, 1977.
12.
StephensonS. R.WeaverD. D.Prenatal diagnosis—a compilation of diagnosed conditions. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol.141: 319–343, 1981.
13.
MagenisR. E.Parental origin of the extra chromosome in Down's Syndrome. Human Genetics37:7–16, 1977.
14.
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Tietung Hospital of Anshan Iron and Steel Company. Fetal sex prediction by sex chromatin and chorionic villi cells during early pregnancy. Chinese Med. Jour.1: 117–126, 1975.
15.
EllesR. G.Absence of maternal contamination of chorionic villi used for fetal-gene analysis. New Eng. J. Med.308: 1433–1435, 1983.
PorrecoR. P.Reproductive outcome following amniocentesis for genetic indications. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol.143: 653–660, 1982.
18.
HarrisH.Prenatal Diagnosis and Selective Abortion, p. 14. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1975.
19.
AdamsM. M.Down's Syndrome; recent trends in the United States. J.A.M.A.246: 758–760, 1981.
20.
HolmesL. B.Genetic counselling for the elder pregnant woman: New data and questions. New Eng. J. Med.298: 1419–1421, 1978.
21.
HubbardR.Personal courage is not enough: Some hazards of childbearing in the 1980s. In Test-Tube Women: What Future For Motherhood?, edited by ArdittiR.Duelli-KleinR.MindenS., pp. 356–369. Pandora Press, London/Boston, 1984.
22.
NielsenC. C.An encounter with modern medical technology: Women's experiences with amniocentesis. Women and Health6: 109–124, 1981.
23.
RothmanB. K.The Products of Conception. Viking, New York, 1985.
24.
BlumbergB. D.GolbusM. S.HansenK. H.The psychological sequelae of abortion performed for a genetic indication. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol.122: 799–808, 1975.
25.
Federation CECOS, SchwartzD.MayauxM. J.Female fecundity as a function of age. New. Eng. J. Med.306: 404–406, 1982.
26.
DeCherneyA. H.BerkowitzG. S.Female fecundity and age. New Eng. J. Med.306: 424–426, 1982.
27.
Correspondence. New Eng. J. Med.307: 370–372, 1982.
28.
BougaartsJ.Infertility after age 30: A false alarm. Family Planning Perspectives14: 75–78, 1982.
29.
O'BrienJ. S.Tay-Sachs disease: Detection of heterozygotes and homozygotes by serum hexosaminidase assay. New Eng. J. Med.283: 15–20, 1970.
SaiferA.Caveats of antenatal diagnosis of Tay-Sachs disease. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol.114: 553–555, 1973.
32.
MilunskyA.Prenatal genetic diagnosis (second of three parts). New Eng. J. Med.283: 1441–1447, 1970.
33.
GoodmanM. J.GoodmanL. E.The overselling of genetic anxiety. Hastings Center Report12(5): 20–27, October 1982.
34.
AnnasG. J.Righting the wrong of ‘wrongful life.’Hastings Center Report11(1): 8–9, February 1981.
35.
MarshF. H.Prenatal screening and “wrongful life:” medicine's new “Catch-22?”Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol.143: 745–748, 1982.
36.
ChangJ. C.KanY. W.A sensitive new prenatal test for sickle-cell anemia. New Eng. J. Med.307: 30–36, 1982.
37.
CullitonB.Sickle cell anemia: The route from obscurity to prominence. Science178: 138–142, 1972.
38.
CullitonB.Sickle cell anemia: National program raises problems as well as hopes. Science178: 283–286, 1972.
39.
WilkinsonD. Y.For whose benefit? politics and sickle cell. Black Scholar5(8): 26–31, May 1974.
40.
WhittenC. F.Sickle cell programming—an imperilled promise. New Eng. J. Med.288: 318–319, 1973.
41.
KenenR. H.SchmidtR. M.Stigmatization of carrier status: Social implications of heterozygote genetic screening programs. Am. J. Pub. Health68: 1116–1120, 1978.
42.
MurrayR. F.Jr.The practitioner's view of the values involved in genetic screening and counselling: Individual vs. societal imperatives. In Ethical, Social and Legal Dimensions of Screening for Human Genetic Disease, edited by BergsmaD.LappéM.RoblinR. O., pp. 185–199. Stratton Intercontinental Medical Book Corporation, New York, 1974.
43.
MotulskyA. G.Impact of genetic manipulation on society and medicine. Science219: 135–140, 1983.
44.
OmennG. S.Predictive identification of hypersusceptible individuals. J. Occup. Med.24: 369–374, 1982.
45.
StokingerH. E.ScheelL. D.Hypersusceptibility and genetic problems in occupational medicine—a consensus report. J. Occup. Med.14: 564–573, 1973.
46.
CalabreseE.Pollutants and High-Risk Groups. John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1978.
47.
ReinhardtC. F.Chemical hypersusceptibility. J. Occup. Med.20: 319–322, 1978.
48.
RothsteinM.Medical Screening of Workers. Bureau of National Affairs Books, Washington, DC, 1984.
49.
MittmanC.Prediction and potential prevention of industrial bronchitis. Am. Jour. Med.57: 192–199, 1974.
50.
YagerJ. W.HinesC. J.SpearR. C.Exposure to ethylene oxide at work increases sister chromatid exchanges in human peripheral lymphocytes. Science219: 1221–1223, 1983.
51.
SeveroR.Debate surrounds Dow Chemical studies on chromosome damage to workers. New York Times, February 5, 1980, sec. L and B, p. 10.
52.
Office of Technology Assessment of the United States Congress. The Role of Genetic Testing in the Prevention of Occupational Disease. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 1983.
53.
LeachL. R.Occupational health survey: An evaluation of potential health hazards in the workplace. Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J.42: 160–184, 1981.
54.
HoganJ.BernackiE.Developing job-related preplacement medical examinations. J. Occup. Med.23: 469–475, 1981.
55.
LernerS. editorial response. J. Occup. Med.23: 475–476, 1981.
56.
StellmanJ. M.HenifinM. S.No fertile women need apply: Employment discrimination and reproductive hazards in the workplace. In Biological Woman—The Convenient Myth, edited by HubbardR.HenifinM. S.FriedB., pp. 117–146. Schenkman Publishing Company, Cambridge, MA, 1982.
57.
BishopJ. E.Predictive probes: Scientists are focusing on genes predisposing people to illnesses. Wall Street Journal, October 12, 1984.
