Arguments For and Against Testing Children's Genetics Essay

Just as most bioethicists and medical professionals agree that genetic testing for curable or preventable diseases is beneficial to patients, they also agree that genetic testing for incurable and untreatable diseases, such as Alzheimer's, is useless (Hubbard & Wald, 1999; Ridley, 1999). Although a negative test may afford a person the reassurance that he or she will not develop the disease, a positive test could be a death sentence. For example, since 1986 people who are at risk for Huntington's disease have had the option of being tested for the mutation on chromosome 4 that is linked to the disease (Ridley, 1999). In Genome, Nancy Wexler, a woman who set out to identify the Huntington's gene in the late 1970s, relates the story of a woman who asked doctors whether or not she had Huntington's disease (Ridley, 1999). Although the doctors found that the woman was showing subtle signs of the disease, she could not detect these signs herself. The doctors, rather than telling the woman that she had the disease, let her believe that she was well and did not have Huntington's disease. After the woman left the doctors' office, the woman's friend came into the office and asked the doctors what they had said to the woman, because earlier the woman had told her friend that she

The medical advances being made feasible by genetic testing are very exciting. It is possible for people with predispositions for genetic defects to know in advance if they will have a healthy child or not. If they find out there is a problem they can choose to terminate the pregnancy or they can prepare in advance for their child's special needs. There is even new technology called Ex Utero genetic testing. This test is performed on eggs fertilized through in vitro fertilization before they are even put in the mother's uterus. Understanding genes in the developing human will help doctors understand the nature of genetic diseases and may lead to countless other medical breakthroughs. Though it is probably a long way off doctors may one day be able to manipulate genes. If this is possible some genetic problems may be cured.

It is patients’ right to opt for genetic testing on their own DNA, although they are accepting a great risk by doing so.

It is easy to see the reasons that led Sara and Brian to make the decision, but following your heart is not always the ethical thing to do. The doctor mentioning the option of genetically engineering a child is unethical. The code of ethics that challenges both these actions is “act in professional matters for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustee, and shall avoid conflicts of interest,” (Grimm). Both decisions are conflicts of interest as the doctor and parents do not see the effects of both Kate and the future child. First, as the doctor, I would never mention genetically engineering a baby as an option to a family I would not have the right to suggest something so life changing, and the possible outcome of the family could be severe and are unknown. The doctors decision in not ethical. Also, as a parent, I would not create a child to cater my other child’s needs, due to the fact that it is not fair to both children. I believe the decision made my Brian and Sara is unethical. They decided to create a baby for the sake of sacrificing one child to save another's life.

As you can see genetic testing is very important and can affect a child's and parents lives for the better and the worst. Children all over the world have serious genetic diseases that affect their life on a daily. Some of these diseases are Achondroplasia, Down syndrome, and Turner's syndrome. Many believe genetic testing is a good way to test for these genetic conditions before the child is even born, but others think that it can harm the baby very badly and even cause a miscarriage, so they choose not to do this kind of testing. Knowing about the most serious genetic diseases is very important for expecting parents to be informed as well as being

Gina Kolata’s article, Ethics Questions Arise as Genetic Testing of Embryos Increases (2014), explains that as the increase of the testing of embryos for parents to choose whether or not to have children has also brought its ethical questions in the light. Kolata uses the Kalinskys case, a family in the article, and how their neurological disease, Gerstmann-Straussler-Schinker (GSS), has raised questions for ethicists who have looked into the case. Kolata’s purpose in writing this article is to inform the audience on the growing topic of embryo testing and also the ethical question that also accompany in order to have the audience to develop a personal view on the issue. Given how the author explains the technical terms used within the article, Kolata is writing to an audience that is not fully aware of genetic testing.

Genetic testing has brought about many changes in the way many couples look at conceiving and raising families. Through genetic testing you are able to screen for the increased chance that a fetus may have one of many congenital disorders, or even identify gene changes that are responsible for a disease that has already been diagnosed (Genetic Testing, March 2015). Unfortunately genetic testing is not always exact, in some cases giving parents false negatives or false positive results. Even if the results are accurate, there is the burden of knowledge once you know the results indicate a genetic abnormality such as Down’s syndrome. While caring for a 2 year old male patient with developmental delays and anotia, I learned that genetic testing had been started but never completed on the child. Genetic testing could help to identify genetic disorders that led to the child’s developmental delays and possible future disorders that may develop. The ethical dilemma I will be discussing to the ANA Ethical dilemma of the impact of informed consent of genetic testing on children for adult onset diseases and disorders.

In chapter four of her book Genetic Dilemmas, Dena Davis asserts that it is unethical for parents to subject their children to genetic testing for the markers of adult-onset genetic diseases because it places an unfair constraint on a child’s right to an open future. It both removes the child’s ability to choose whether to be tested as an adult and has the potential to negatively alter the overall trajectory of their lives. While the current consensus amongst medical professionals is that such testing should be prohibited (Davis, _____), many concerned parents correctly point out that discouraging such testing creates a conflict of interests between the “beneficence model of patient care and the rights of parents to their own autonomy”

Not only are there benefits with genetic testing, but there are benefits by not going through genetic testing. Genetic testing can be costly, and therefore will be less expensive by not following through with the tests. Genetic testing is usually not covered by insurance; therefore, many families would have to decide if the costly payments are worth their budget. More than one test may have to be used to detect if there is a disease taking course. Back to the military wife, two of her daughter Riley’s tests came back negative. At first, her daughter was diagnosed with developmental delays. Not only did she go through doing genetic testing, but she also did an MRI. Both of these tests didn’t

<br>4. The rights of knowing someone's own health status and keeping that information private to oneself should be provided to all members of a society. Only the individual should have full access to information about his own genetic constitution and others should be prevented by legal regulations. As we have said above, the results of genetic tests can sometimes be detrimental to the individual. If a person does not want to know the information, its nobody's business nor right to declare it. This includes even not explaining favorable test results without the individual's request.

Leighton sides with the consensus view that advocates pre-symptomatic and predisposition genetic testing for conditions that manifest in adulthood, lack treatment or are incurable should not

One of the most captivating chapters throughout her book, Genetic Dilemmas, is her argument against childhood testing for late-onset genetic diseases. She also discussed how parental knowledge of the results violates the child’s right to an open future and can strain the relationship between parent and child. Yet, Dena Davis has been criticized for these claims in many publications, including a popular article by Mary Ann Sevick. In this paper, I will argue that children should not be forced to know their fate and show that the critics are not looking at the bigger picture.

The Goal of the Human Genome Project is to obtain genetic mapping information and to determine the complete sequence of all human DNA by the year of 2005. The project started in 1990 and 180 million dollars are being spent on it annually. This adds up to a total of over 2 billion dollars for the 15 year budget. Of this 2 billion dollars budgeted, 5% is spent annually on the ethical, legal and social issues. This report focused on some of these issues.

Medical professionals today can screen for certain genetic traits (genetic diseases and sex) with in vitro fertilization and preimplantation genetic diagnosis to obtain a healthy child, and reproductive technology continues to improve. With this in mind, the question arises whether sex selection is ethical. Julian Savulescu, Uehiro Professor of Practical Ethics at Oxford University, argues that sex selection is moral, based on his ethical principle of Procreative Beneficence: that “couples (or single reproducers) should select the child, of the possible children they could have, who is expected to have the best life, or at least as good a life as the others, based on the relevant, available information” [Savulescu 1]. Savulescu claims

genetic testing, everything has changed. She notes that clinicians now have the ability to diagnose, treat, and monitor a patient’s illnesses or disease progression in an entirely different manner. This is a far cry from the old medical model of responding to a disease (or defect) only after it appears, and then prescribing the recommended medication or intervention. These genetic medical advances sound miraculous and promising, but the ability to test, screen and provide early intervention does not come without many major ethical dilemmas.