CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 31Hearing, Cochlea, Tinnitus, GeneticsMedical and Health Sciences ResearchHearing Loss and Rehabilitation

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

The Implications of Genetic Testing for Deafness

Arnos, Kathleen S.·2003·Ear & Hearing
DOI 10.1097/01.aud.0000079800.64741.cf
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Using modern biotechnology, it is increasingly common that genes can be identified and characterized, their protein products can be understood and tests to identify changes in these genes that lead to disease can be developed. Genetic tests are rapidly being introduced into clinical practice. Although there are many clinical benefits of genetic testing for a variety of medical conditions, there are also important practical and ethical concerns about the applications of genetic testing. The recent introduction of genetic tests for common forms of hereditary deafness (see also Rehm, 2003, in this issue) also promises many clinical benefits. Many of the same ethical concerns for genetic testing in general, also apply to genetic testing for deafness, with the added concerns brought about by the existence of the linguistic and cultural differences of the Deaf community. Sensitive genetic counseling performed by skilled geneticists is an important part of the genetic testing process to ensure that families and individuals can make informed choices regarding the use of genetic testing.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/01.aud.0000079800.64741.cf

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Still being checked.

Research works printed but not linked: 32

  1. 2001, Ethical issues with genetic testing in pediatrics, Pediatrics, 107, 1451, 10.1542/peds.107.6.1451 · DOI
  2. Andersson, 1991, Sociological implications of genetic deafness, American Journal of Human Genetics Supplement, 49, 5
  3. Anstey, 2002, Are attempts to have impaired children justifiable?, Journal of Medical Ethics, 28, 286, 10.1136/jme.28.5.286 · DOI
  4. Arnos, 2002, Genetics and deafness: Impacts on the deaf community, Sign Language Studies, 2, 150, 10.1353/sls.2002.0002 · DOI
  5. Brunger, 2000, Parental attitudes toward genetic testing for pediatric deafness, American Journal of Human Genetics, 67, 1621, 10.1086/316901 · DOI
  6. Christiansen, 1991, Sociological implications of hearing loss, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 630, 230, 10.1111/j.1749-6632.1991.tb19592.x · DOI
  7. Cunningham, 2000, The genetics revolution: Ethical, legal, and insurance concerns, Postgraduate Medicine, 108, 193, 10.3810/pgm.2000.07.1163 · DOI
  8. del Castillo, 2002, A deletion involving the connexin 30 gene in nonsyndromic hearing impairment, New England Journal of Medicine, 346, 243, 10.1056/NEJMoa012052 · DOI
  9. Epstein, 2000, Some ethical implications of the Human Genome Project, Genetics in Medicine, 2, 193, 10.1097/00125817-200005000-00006 · DOI
  10. Fischel-Ghodsian, 2003, Mitochondrial deafness, Ear Hearing, 24, 10.1097/01.AUD.0000079802.82344.B5 · DOI
  11. Friedman, 2003, Recent advances in the understanding of syndromic forms of hearing loss, Ear Hearing, 24, 10.1097/01.AUD.0000079804.00047.CE · DOI
  12. 2002, Genetics evaluation guidelines for the etiologic diagnosis of congenital hearing loss, Genetics in Medicine, 4, 162, 10.1097/00125817-200205000-00011 · DOI
  13. Grundfast, 1992, Ethical and cultural considerations in research on hereditary deafness, Otolaryngologic Clinics of North America, 25, 973, 10.1016/S0030-6665(20)30918-X · DOI
  14. 2000, Year 2000 Position Statement: Principles and guidelines for early hearing detection and intervention programs, American Journal of Audiology, 9, 9, 10.1044/1059-0889(2000/005) · DOI
  15. Jordan, 1991, Ethical issues in the genetic study of deafness, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 630, 236, 10.1111/j.1749-6632.1991.tb19593.x · DOI
  16. Kanavakis, 2002, Preimplantation genetic diagnosis in clinical practice, Journal of Medical Genetics, 39, 6, 10.1136/jmg.39.1.6 · DOI
  17. Levy, 2002, Deafness, culture, and choice, Journal of Medical Ethics, 28, 284, 10.1136/jme.28.5.284 · DOI
  18. Martinez, 2003, Attitudes of the broader hearing, deaf, and hard-of-hearing community toward genetic testing for deafness, Genetics in Medicine, 5, 106, 10.1097/01.GIM.0000055200.52906.75 · DOI
  19. Middleton, 1998, Attitudes of deaf adults toward genetic testing for hereditary deafness, American Journal of Human Genetics, 63, 1175, 10.1086/302060 · DOI
  20. Middleton, 2001, Prenatal diagnosis for inherited deafness—what is the potential demand?, Journal of Genetic Counseling, 10, 121, 10.1023/A:1009439630457 · DOI
  21. Mundy, 2002, A world of their own, The Washington Post Magazine, 24
  22. Nance, 2000, Statement of the American College of Medical Genetics on universal newborn hearing screening, Genetics in Medicine, 2, 149, 10.1097/00125817-200003000-00006 · DOI
  23. Nance, 2000, Relation between choice of partner and high frequency of connexin-26 deafness, Lancet, 356, 500, 10.1016/S0140-6736(00)02565-4 · DOI
  24. 1999, Communicating informed consent to individuals who are deaf or hard-of-hearing, DHHS, 24
  25. Pagon, 2001, Genetic testing, Western Medical Journal, 174, 344, 10.1136/ewjm.174.5.344 · DOI
  26. Rehm, 2003, Genetics and the genome project, Ear Hearing, 24, 10.1097/01.AUD.0000079806.73761.C8 · DOI
  27. Riazuddin, 2000, Dominant modifier DFNM1 suppresses recessive deafness DFNB26, Nature Genetics, 26, 431, 10.1038/82558 · DOI
  28. Savulescu, 2002, Deaf lesbians, “designer disability,” and the future of medicine, British Medical Journal, 325, 771, 10.1136/bmj.325.7367.771 · DOI
  29. Stern, 2002, Attitudes of deaf and hard of hearing subjects toward genetic testing and prenatal diagnosis of hearing loss, Journal of Medical Genetics, 39, 449, 10.1136/jmg.39.6.449 · DOI
  30. Tekin, 2001, Advances in hereditary deafness, Lancet, 358, 1082, 10.1016/S0140-6736(01)06186-4 · DOI
  31. Van Laer, 2003, Nonsyndromic hearing loss, Ear Hearing, 24, 10.1097/01.AUD.0000079805.04016.03 · DOI
  32. Wilfond, 1993, National policy development for the clinical application of genetic diagnostic technologies. Lessons from cystic fibrosis, Journal of the American Medical Association, 270, 2948, 10.1001/jama.1993.03510240060033 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Arnos, K. S.
Affiliations
Gallaudet University (US)
Corresponding author
Arnos, Kathleen S.
Venue
Ear & Hearing
Publisher
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Published
2003-08
Volume
24
Issue
4
Pages
324-331
ISSN
0196-0202 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1097/01.aud.0000079800.64741.cf
OpenAlex
W1987161290
Cited by
31
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1 · 2014: 2 · 2012: 2
FWCI
0.23
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Ear and Hearing (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Sensory Systems › Hearing, Cochlea, Tinnitus, Genetics
  • Social Sciences › Law › Medical and Health Sciences Research
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Speech and Hearing › Hearing Loss and Rehabilitation
Keywords
genetic testing, hereditary hearing loss, genetic counseling, ethics of genetic testing, deaf community, cultural and linguistic differences, informed consent, medical genetics
MeSH terms
Deafness, Genetic Testing, Genetic Carrier Screening, Humans, Social Values

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review