Guidelines for Disclosing Genetic Information to Family Members: From Development to Use
Référence bibliographique 
Godard, Béatrice, Hurlimann, Thierry, Letendre, Martin et Égalité, Nathalie. 2006. «Guidelines for Disclosing Genetic Information to Family Members: From Development to Use ». Familial Cancer, vol. 5, no 1, p. 103-116.
Intentions : « This paper presents the existing legal frameworks, professional guidelines and other documents related to the conditions and extent of the disclosure of genetic information by physicians to at-risk family members. This paper examines the commonality and differences between the positions taken in order to discern general trends. Practical frameworks to guide physicians for resolving ‘difficult’ situations are proposed. » (p. 104)
Échantillon/Matériau : « We analyzed 62 guidelines produced by 42 different developers. Of the guidelines examined, seven were produced by international organizations (HUGO, UNESCO, WHO, WMA), eight by regional bodies (Council of Europe, European Parliament, GAEIB, HGSA), and 47 by national instances (Australia, Austria, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Japan, Switzerland, The Netherlands, UK, USA). » (p. 104)
Instruments : « We made a structured review of guidelines published from 1987 through April 2004 identified by a PUBMED, HUMGEN as well as global Internet search using the following terms: duty, warn, disclosure, notification, guidelines, statement, position paper, protocol, recommendations, opinion, policy, genetic, testing, confidentiality, family members and relatives. » (p. 104)
Type de traitement des données : Recension d’écrits
« Although the duty of a physician regarding disclosure of genetic information to a patient’s relatives has only been addressed by few legal cases, courts have found such a duty under some circumstances. Generally, disclosure should not be permitted without the patient’s consent. Yet, due to the nature of genetic information, exceptions are foreseen, where treatment and prevention are available. This duty to warn a patient’s relative is also supported by some professional and policy organizations that have addressed the issue. Practice guidelines with a communication and intervention plan are emerging, providing physicians with tools that allow them to assist patients in their communication with relatives without jeopardizing their professional liability. Since guidelines aim to improve the appropriateness of medical practice and consequently to better serve the interests of patients, it is important to determine to what degree they document the ‘best practice’ standards. Such an analysis is an essential step to evaluate the different approaches permitting the disclosure of genetic information to family members. » (p. 103)
’Imperilled’ Newborns : A Duty to Treat? : From Personhood to Best Interests
Référence bibliographique 
Hurlimann, Thierry. 2005. ’Imperilled’ Newborns : A Duty to Treat? : From Personhood to Best Interests. Montréal: Éditions Thémis.
Intentions : « Which newborns that are preterm, very low birth weight or very malformed are so imperilled that medical treatment should not be provided? [The author] advocates that an appropriate attempt to answer this question can only be achieved by first considering the concepts of legal and moral ’personhood’. » (quatrième de couverture)
Type de traitement des données : Réflexion critique
« [In this book, the author] examines the ethical and legal theories that help inform a broad understanding of ’personhood’ within a complex matrix of societal, political, legal and ethical considerations. It is this background that impacts so greatly on the legal and moral status of imperilled neonates. In so doing, he draws upon numerous judicial and legislative examples notably from Canada, Quebec, the United States, and the United Kingdom. [The author] demonstrates how technological progress, political pressures and changing societal values have unsettled previous legal notions, such as ’live birth’ and ’viability’. Ultimately, [the author] demonstrates that the controversial concept of ’moral personhood’ will likely impact on a legal analysis of what constitutes the ’best interests’ of imperilled newborns in medical treatment. Such an impact is itself fraught with controversy. » (quatrième de couverture)
The Duty to Treat Very Defective Neonates as ''Persons'' : From the Legal and Moral Personhood of Very Defective Neonates to their Best Interests in Medical Treatment
Référence bibliographique 
Hurlimann, Thierry. 2003. «The Duty to Treat Very Defective Neonates as ''Persons'' : From the Legal and Moral Personhood of Very Defective Neonates to their Best Interests in Medical Treatment». Montreal, Université McGill, Institut de droit comparé.
Intentions : « The dramatic improvement of neonatal intensive care has produced vexing ethical and legal questions. One of the most striking issues is to determine whether the most defective neonates should be provided with intensive care and to what extent they should be treated. This thesis demonstrates that an attempt to answer this question and an analysis of the demands and limitations of a duty to treat defective neonates cannot properly occur without first considering the legal concerns and ethical issues surrounding the notion of ’person’. » (p. 2)
Échantillon/Matériau : « The author examines germane ethical theories and North-American jurisprudence. » (p. 2)
Type de traitement des données : Analyse de contenu et réflexion critique
« This thesis demonstrates that in the context of the cessation or non-inition of intensive care, the legal and moral status of very defective neonates remain ambiguous. In particular, the author suggests that a legal best interests analysis that includes quality of life consideration may actually involve the use of criteria similar to those supported by the authors of the controversial moral theories that negate the personhood of seriously handicapped newborns. The author ultimately concludes that a clear divide between the legal definition of the ’person’ and the moral and social perceptions of that term is misleading. » (p. 2)