Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T23:45:19.975Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Acceptability of Prenatal Diagnosis in Japan

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2009

Hirokatsu Kitai ,
Hisako Watanabe ,
Mitsuko Sayama ,
Miyuki Kanemune ,
Mayumi Nishiyama ,
Ruriko Nishino  and
Kimihiko Itoh
Hirokatsu Kitai
Affiliation:
Social Insurance Saitama Chuoh Hospital
Hisako Watanabe
Affiliation:
Saitama College of Health
Mitsuko Sayama
Affiliation:
Saitama College of Health
Miyuki Kanemune
Affiliation:
Saitama College of Health
Mayumi Nishiyama
Affiliation:
Saitama College of Health
Ruriko Nishino
Affiliation:
Social Insurance Saitama Chuoh Hospital
Kimihiko Itoh
Affiliation:
Social Insurance Saitama Chuoh Hospital
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Prenatal diagnosis has been performed more frequently in Japan recently, but is still less popular than in the United States or Europe. Legal arrangements, insufficient economic support, and insufficient medical information provided to future parents may explain this difference. The acceptability of prenatal diagnosis, based on the concept of the cost of side effects and elective abortion, was found to be similar when examined through decision analysis and direct survey. Amniocentesis was considered useful for more than half of couples in Japan when the incidence of chromosomal abnormality is more than 0.5% and proper information about the decision to undergo this examination is provided to the pregnant woman and her family.

Type
Special Section: Assessing Nursing and Technology
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 10 , Issue 3 , Summer 1994 , pp. 436 - 446
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1994

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Chervenak, F. A., Isaacson, G., & Mahoney, M. J.Advances in the diagnosis of fetal defects. New England Journal of Medicine, 1986, 315, 305–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2.Donnai, D.Genetic risk. In James, D. K. & Stirrat, G. M. (eds.), Pregnancy and risk. Chichester: Wiley Liss, 1988, 23–43.Google Scholar
3.Hanson, F. W., Tennant, F. R., Zorn, E. M., & Samuels, S.Analysis of 2136 genetic amniocentesis: Experiences of a single doctor. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 1985, 152, 436–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4.Hanson, F. W., Zorn, E. M., Tennant, F. R., et al. Amniocentesis before 15 weeks’ gestation: Outcome, risks and technical problems. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 1987, 156, 1524–31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.King, C. R. Prenatal diagnosis of genetic disease with molecular genetic technology. Obstetrical and Gynecologic Survey, 1988,-, 493–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6.Oh kura, K., & Kimura, R.Ethics and medical genetics in Japan. In Wertz, D. C. & Fletcher, J. C. (eds.), Ethics and human genetics. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1989, 294–316.Google Scholar
7.Pauker, S. P., & Pauker, S. G.Parental diagnosis: A directive approach to genetic counseling using decision analysis. The Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine, 1977, 50, 275–89.Google ScholarPubMed
8.Robinson, G. E, Garner, D. M., Olmsted, M. P., et al. Anxiety reduction after chorionic villi sampling and genetic amniocentesis. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 1988, 159, 953–56.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed