Newborn Screening for Developmental Disabilities: Reframing Presumptive Benefit
Donald B. Bailey, Jr, PhD,
Debra Skinner, PhD and
Steven F. Warren, PhD
Don Bailey and Debra Skinner are with the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Steve Warren is with the University of Kansas, Lawrence.
Correspondence: Requests for reprints should be sent to Don Bailey, FPG Child Development Institute, CB # 8180, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-8180 (e-mail: don_bailey{at}unc.edu).
A fundamental tenet of newborn screening is that screening shouldlead to a proven benefit for the infant. The standard is usuallyconstrued as medical benefit that significantly improves a childshealth. Screening for many conditions that cause developmentaldisabilities does not currently meet this standard.
We argue for expanding concepts of presumptive benefit. Newbornscreening provides access to early intervention programs thatare shown to positively influence child development and supportfamilies. Consumers want information about their childrenshealth and their own reproductive risk, and they have a broaderview than policymakers of what constitutes a treatable disorder.Newborn screening provides other societal benefits that, inthe absence of data showing harm and with appropriate attentionto ethical and legal issues, warrant consideration of an expansionof targets for newborn screening.
This article has been cited by other articles:
J. P. Brosco, L. M. Sanders, R. Dharia, G. Guez, and C. Feudtner The Lure of Treatment: Expanded Newborn Screening and the Curious Case of Histidinemia
Pediatrics,
March 1, 2010;
125(3):
417 - 419.
[Full Text][PDF]
M. B. Bruder, C. J. Dunst, and C. Mogro-Wilson Child Factors Associated With Enrollment in Part C Early Intervention Among Children Adopted From China
Journal of Early Intervention,
December 1, 2009;
32(1):
54 - 67.
[Abstract][PDF]
D. B. Bailey Jr, M. Raspa, E. Bishop, and D. Holiday No Change in the Age of Diagnosis for Fragile X Syndrome: Findings From a National Parent Survey
Pediatrics,
August 1, 2009;
124(2):
527 - 533.
[Abstract][Full Text][PDF]
D. B. Bailey Jr, F. D. Armstrong, A. R. Kemper, D. Skinner, and S. F. Warren Supporting Family Adaptation to Presymptomatic and "Untreatable" Conditions in an Era of Expanded Newborn Screening
J. Pediatr. Psychol.,
July 1, 2009;
34(6):
648 - 661.
[Abstract][Full Text][PDF]
I. Fernandez-Carvajal, P. Walichiewicz, X. Xiaosen, R. Pan, P. J. Hagerman, and F. Tassone Screening for Expanded Alleles of the FMR1 Gene in Blood Spots from Newborn Males in a Spanish Population
J. Mol. Diagn.,
July 1, 2009;
11(4):
324 - 329.
[Abstract][Full Text][PDF]
D. B. Bailey Jr, D. Skinner, A. M. Davis, I. Whitmarsh, and C. Powell Ethical, Legal, and Social Concerns About Expanded Newborn Screening: Fragile X Syndrome as a Prototype for Emerging Issues
Pediatrics,
March 1, 2008;
121(3):
e693 - e704.
[Abstract][Full Text][PDF]
F. Tassone, R. Pan, K. Amiri, A. K. Taylor, and P. J. Hagerman A Rapid Polymerase Chain Reaction-Based Screening Method for Identification of All Expanded Alleles of the Fragile X (FMR1) Gene in Newborn and High-Risk Populations
J. Mol. Diagn.,
January 1, 2008;
10(1):
43 - 49.
[Abstract][Full Text][PDF]
D. B. Bailey Jr, L. Nelson, K. Hebbeler, and D. Spiker Modeling the Impact of Formal and Informal Supports for Young Children With Disabilities and Their Families
Pediatrics,
October 1, 2007;
120(4):
e992 - e1001.
[Abstract][Full Text][PDF]
B. A. Tarini The Current Revolution in Newborn Screening: New Technology, Old Controversies
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med,
August 1, 2007;
161(8):
767 - 772.
[Abstract][Full Text][PDF]
R. R. Howell We Need Expanded Newborn Screening
Pediatrics,
May 1, 2006;
117(5):
1800 - 1805.
[Full Text][PDF]