Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T10:15:30.806Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

“Eugenics” By Another Name?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 December 2014

Michael I. Shevell
Michael I. Shevell*
Affiliation:
Department of Neurology/Neurosurgery, Pediatrics-McGill University, Division of Pediatric, Neurology-Montreal Children's Hospital, Montreal, QC, Canada
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. As you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Commentary
Information
Canadian Journal of Neurological Sciences , Volume 34 , Issue 4 , November 2007 , pp. 494 - 495
Copyright
Copyright © The Canadian Journal of Neurological 2007

References

1. Summers, AM, Langlois, S, Wyatt, P, Wilson, RD. Prenatal screening for fetal aneuploidy. SOGC Guidelines No. 187. February 2007 www.sogc.orgGoogle Scholar
2. Agrell, S. Call for more fetal tests raises concerns. National Post; 2007 Jan 6.Google Scholar
3. Agrell, S. Down syndrome group decries fetal screenings. National Post; 2007 Jan 6.Google Scholar
4. Abraham, C. Expand prenatal tests, MDs Urge. Globe & Mail; 2007 Feb 6.Google Scholar
5. Chodirker, BN, Codrin, C, Davies, GAL, Summer, AM, et al. Canadian guidelines for prenatal diagnosis: genetic indications for prenatal diagnosis. SOGC Guidelines No. 105, June 2001 www.sogc.org-lastGoogle Scholar
6. Kim, PCW, Walker, M, Beduz, MA. The Fetal Alert Network: An innovative program of access to care, surveillance & education for birth defects in Ontario. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2006;28:1099–102.Google Scholar
7. Paul, D. Controlling human heredity: 1865 to the present. New jersey: Humanities Press; 1995.Google Scholar
8. Plato. The Republic. Penguin Press: Harmondsworth, 1987 (lines 458c-459e).Google Scholar
9. Wilson, JMG, Jungner, G. Principles & practice of screening for decision. WHO Chronicle. 1968;22:1–163.Google Scholar
10. Bernat, JL. Informed consent in pediatric neurology. Sem Pediatr Neurol. 2002;9:10–18.Google Scholar
11. Heidegger, M. The question concerning technology. In: Basic writings. New York: Harper & Row; 1977. p. 288.Google Scholar
12. Solomon, S. New prenatal screening guidelines spack controversy. National Review of Medicine. 2007 Feb 28.Google Scholar
13. Yoon, PW, Olney, RS, Khoury, MJ, Sepperfield, WM, Chavez, GF, Taylor, D. Contribution of birth defects and genetic diseases to pediatric hospitalizations. A population based study. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 1997;151:1096–103.Google Scholar
14. Kohut, R, Rosen, ID. Congenital Anomalies in Canada- a perinatal health report. Health Canada. 2002.Google Scholar
15. Saigal, S, Stoskopf, BL, Feeny, D, Burrows, E, et al. Differences in preferences for neonatal outcomes among health care professionals, parents and adolescents. JAMA. 1999;281:1991–7.Google Scholar
16. Shevell, MI. Clinical ethics and developmental delay. Sem Pediatr Neurol. 1998;5:70–5.Google Scholar
17. Coulter, DL. Ethical issues in child neurology. In: Pediatric neurology: principles & practice. Swaiman, KF, Ashwal, S, Ferreiro, DM, editors. 4th edition. Philadelphia: Mosby-Elsevier. 2006. p. 2387–98.Google Scholar