Ethical issues associated with genetic counseling in the context of adolescent psychiatry
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Genetic counseling is a well-established healthcare discipline that provides individuals and families with health information about disorders that have a genetic component in a supportive counseling encounter. It has recently been applied in the context of psychiatric disorders (like schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, schizoaffective disorder, obsessive compulsive disorder, depression and anxiety) that typically appear sometime during later childhood through to early adulthood. Psychiatric genetic counseling is emerging as an important service that fills a growing need to reframe understandings of the causes of mental health disorders. In this review, we will define psychiatric genetic counseling, and address important ethical concerns (we will particularly give attention to the principles of autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence and justice) that must be considered in the context of its application in adolescent psychiatry, whilst integrating evidence regarding patient outcomes from the literature. We discuss the developing capacity and autonomy of adolescents as an essential and dynamic component of genetic counseling provision in this population and discuss how traditional viewpoints regarding beneficence and non-maleficence should be considered in the unique situation of adolescents with, or at risk for, psychiatric conditions. We argue that thoughtful and tailored counseling in this setting can be done in a manner that addresses the important health needs of this population while respecting the core principles of biomedical ethics, including the ethic of care.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it