This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

B. Meredith Burke, PhD
Cupertino, Calif

JAMA. 1995;273(14):1089.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

To the Editor.

—In the thought-provoking article by Dr Wertz and colleagues,¹ they propose that where testing has no health benefits, a minor of reproductive age should be the primary decision maker regarding genetic testing because he or she possesses the "negative right" of deciding not to know.^1(p879) This downplays the moral and legal obligation to protect an innocent bystander.

Where the carrier is healthy, parents may reason there is no need to inform a minor child of a familial genetic problem. In a book, Kolker and I report interviewing a mother who spent many hours a week taking a child with an unbalanced translocation on a weekly round of specialists.^2(p140) When asked when she planned to inform her healthy son that he carried the same balanced translocation as herself, she hesitated, then responded, "Well, I guess before he marries—or perhaps goes off to college." We then . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?