IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/aph/ajpbhl/198272121347-1352_5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A survey to evaluate parental consent as public policy for neonatal screening

Author

Listed:
  • Faden, R.
  • Chwalow, A.J.
  • Holtzman, N.A.
  • Horn, S.D.

Abstract

Most states currently have laws which result in compulsory neonatal screening practices, despite a widespread consensus that participation in genetic services and programs should be voluntary. In 1976, Maryland adopted a regulation designed to respect parents' rights to refuse neonatal screening by imposing a parental consent requirement. The results of a study designed to evaluate the effects of this regulation are reviewed here. Many health care providers were unaware of the parental consent regulation. However, hospitals were generally in compliance with the technical stipulations of the regulations. There was little evidence that the regulation resulted in additional costs to the health care system, either in terms of hospital staff time or in terms of loss of efficiency in the number of infants screened. Mothers affected by the regulation were largely in favor of being informed about neonatal screening and learned a significant amount of new information from the disclosure process. They were almost evenly divided on whether they favored parental consent.

Suggested Citation

  • Faden, R. & Chwalow, A.J. & Holtzman, N.A. & Horn, S.D., 1982. "A survey to evaluate parental consent as public policy for neonatal screening," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 72(12), pages 1347-1352.
  • Handle: RePEc:aph:ajpbhl:1982:72:12:1347-1352_5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:aph:ajpbhl:1982:72:12:1347-1352_5. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Christopher F Baum (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.apha.org .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.