No abstract

Technology will make it possible to screen for fragile X syndrome and other conditions that do not meet current guidelines for routine newborn screening. This possibility evokes at least 8 broad ethical, legal, and social concerns: (1) early identification of fragile X syndrome, an "untreatable" condition, could lead to heightened anxiety about parenting, oversensitivity to development, alterations in parenting, or disrupted bonding; (2) because fragile X syndrome screening should be voluntary, informed consent could overwhelm parents with information, significantly burden hospitals, and reduce participation in the core screening program; (3) screening will identify some children who are or appear to be phenotypically normal; (4) screening might identify children with other conditions not originally targeted for screening; (5) screening could overwhelm an already limited capacity for genetic counseling and comprehensive care; (6) screening for fragile X syndrome, especially if carrier status is disclosed, increases the likelihood of negative self-concept, societal stigmatization, and insurance or employment discrimination; (7) screening will suggest risk in extended family members, raising ethical and legal issues (because they never consented to screening) and creating a communication burden for parents or expanding the scope of physician responsibility; and (8) screening for fragile X syndrome could heighten discrepancies in how men and women experience genetic risk or decide about testing. To address these concerns we recommend a national newborn screening research network; the development of models for informed decision-making; materials and approaches for helping families understand genetic information and communicating it to others; a national forum to address carrier testing and the disclosure of secondary or incidental findings; and public engagement of scientists, policy makers, ethicists, practitioners, and other citizens to discuss the desired aims of newborn screening and the characteristics of a system needed to achieve those aims.

Klinefelter, Turner, and fragile X syndromes are conditions defined by a genetic or chromosomal variant. The timing of diagnosis, tests employed, specialists involved, symptoms evident, and prognoses available vary considerably within and across these syndromes, but all three share in common a diagnosis verified through a molecular or cytogenetic test. The genetic or chromosomal variant identified designates a syndrome, even when symptoms associated with the particular syndrome are absent. This article analyzes interviews conducted with parents and grandparents of children with these syndromes from across the USA to explore how they interpret a confirmed genetic diagnosis that is associated with a range of possible symptoms that may never be exhibited. Parents' responses indicate that they see the genetic aspects of the syndrome as stable, permanent, and authoritative. But they allow, and even embrace, uncertainty about the condition by focusing on variation between diagnosed siblings, the individuality of their diagnosed child, his or her accomplishments, and other positive aspects that go beyond the genetic diagnosis. Some families counter the genetic diagnosis by arguing that in the absence of symptoms, the syndrome does not exist. They use their own expertise to question the perceived certainty of the genetic diagnosis and to employ the diagnosis strategically. These multiple and often conflicting evaluations of the diagnostic label reveal the rich ways families make meaning of the authority attributed to genetic diagnosis.

In recent years in Barbados, the interaction of multinational pharmaceutical companies, the Ministry of Health (MOH), and international biomedical research has resulted in a focus on pharmaceuticals in public health intervention and the production of an expansive category of asthma. This article explores the views and uses of this process based on fieldwork conducted with doctors, nurses, pharmacists, MOH officials, and patient families involved in asthma care. Following ambiguities and contradictions in the significance of biomedical objects, I argue that this integration of pharmaceutical markets occurs with a foundational instability. Such ambiguity and contradiction are central to both the efficacy and undermining of global economic processes, including “pharmaceuticalization.”[pharmaceuticalization, ambiguity, asthma, globalization]

No abstract