Journalartikel

Jahr der Veröffentlichung: 2005

Seiten: 116-123

Zeitschrift: Reproductive BioMedicine Online

Bandnummer: 10

Heftnummer: 1

ISSN: 1472-6483

Open Access Status: Bronze

DOI Link: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1472-6483(10)60812-7

Verlag: Elsevier

Abstract: 
The regulation of reproductive medicine technologies differs significantly among Western industrialized countries. In Germany, preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) is prohibited due to the Embryo Protection Act, which came into force in 1991. In the last 5 years, this prohibition has been vigorously debated. In the present studies, which are part of the German research programme on ethical implications of the Human Genome Project, representative surveys were undertaken to assess the attitudes on PGD in the general population (n = 10 17), five relevant expert groups (n = 879), high genetic risk couples (n = 324) and couples undergoing IVF (n = 108). All groups surveyed clearly favoured allowing PGD in Germany. Compared with the results of recently conducted population surveys in the UK and the USA, where PGD is already carried out, public approval of PGD does not differ significantly. The influence of restrictive biopolitics on the apparently liberal public opinion towards new reproductive technology seems to be marginal according to the present data, which should carefully be considered in the ongoing legislation process on human reproduction.

Harvard-Zitierstil: Krones, T., Schlüter, E., Manolopoulos, K., Bock, K., Tinneberg, H., Koch, M., et al. (2005) Public, expert and patients' opinions on preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) in Germany, Reproductive BioMedicine Online, 10(1), pp. 116-123. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1472-6483(10)60812-7

APA-Zitierstil: Krones, T., Schlüter, E., Manolopoulos, K., Bock, K., Tinneberg, H., Koch, M., Lindner, M., Hoffmann, G., Mayatepek, E., Huels, G., Neuwohner, E., El Ansari, S., Wissner, T., & Richter, G. (2005). Public, expert and patients' opinions on preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) in Germany. Reproductive BioMedicine Online. 10(1), 116-123. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1472-6483(10)60812-7