Journal of Medical Ethics 46 (8):534-535 (2020)

Developing a simple test to identify swiftly neonates with sepsis who carry the genetic variant which means that one dose of the recommended antibiotic, gentamicin, will cause the child to become profoundly deaf looks like an admirable objective. The baby needs antibiotics and needs them within 1 hour of admission to the neonatal intensive care unit. Conventional genetic tests take much longer to yield results. The test being trialled produces results in 25 min; a baby who carries the variant can be treated with a different antibiotic. All the test requires is a gentle swab of the baby’s inner cheek. Babies can be treated for potentially fatal sepsis without the risk that the drugs designed to save their lives will cost them their hearing. Parents and healthcare staff are relieved of worry—a great idea? PALOH is not a trial of the safety or efficacy of the test, only to assess how feasible it will be to carry out this test in a busy NICU, without disrupting the care of the baby. A tiny painless ‘scrape’ will take a sample of DNA—what’s the fuss about? Several other invasive and painful procedures will be carried out without a fuss.1 The problem is DNA. Genetic information must be safeguarded from falling into the wrong hands. In section 45 of Human Tissue Act 2004, Parliament legislated to prohibit non-consensual DNA testing.1 It fits uncomfortably in a statute designed to regulate retention and uses of human material, after revelations that organs and tissue from the …
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1136/medethics-2020-106105
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 71,379
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Explanatory Frameworks and Managing Randomness.Kenneth Boyd - 2020 - Journal of Medical Ethics 46 (8):493-494.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

The Great Fuss Over "Philebus" 15b.David C. Mirhady - 1992 - Apeiron 25 (3):171 - 177.
Peter Fuss, "The Moral Philosophy of Josiah Royce". [REVIEW]J. Loewenberg - 1966 - Journal of the History of Philosophy 4 (2):179.
Interpreting Leamer.Clark Glymour - 1985 - Economics and Philosophy 1 (2):290.
Conscience.Peter Fuss - 1964 - Ethics 74 (2):111-120.
The Declaration of Helsinki: Why All the Fuss.W. Tadd - 2000 - Nursing Ethics 7 (5):439-450.
Look Who's Talking, or If Looks Could Kill.Diana Fuss - 1996 - Critical Inquiry 22 (2):383-392.
Fashion and the Homospectatorial Look.Diana Fuss - 1992 - Critical Inquiry 18 (4):713-737.


Added to PP index

Total views
6 ( #1,137,556 of 2,519,696 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #406,314 of 2,519,696 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes