Effects of Genetic Discrimination

   The Human Genome Project is the largest scientific endeavor undertaken since the Manhattan Project, and, as with the Manhattan Project, the completion of the Human Genome Project has brought to surface many moral and ethical issues concerning the use of the knowledge gained from the project. Although genetic tests for certain diseases have been available for 15 years (Ridley, 1999), the completion of the Human Genome Project will certainly lead to an exponential increase in the number of genetic tests available. Therefore, before genetic testing becomes a routine part of a visit to a doctor's office, the two main questions at the heart of the controversy surrounding genetic testing must be

The benefit of genetic science for individuals is that it can determine if the person has a possible genetic disorder and give them

Through studies such as the Human Genome Project, researchers have discovered more information than ever about genes, chromosomes, DNA, and specific medical conditions and diseases. Although, we cannot hold modern medicine responsible for discovering biological markers and treatments for certain medical conditions, historical events such as Buck v. Bell need to be brought into the classroom for students to understand how linking complex human traits and behaviors to heredity is erroneous and may lead to unjustifiable social policies. Human traits and behaviors are more so based upon an individual’s environment rather than the genes an individual inherits. Many historians worry that contemporary economic and social problems can give rise to a new eugenics movement. Given the constant struggle over limited resources, we can expect eugenic proposals to resurface overtime. The story of Carrie Buck provides a point of departure for discussing and understanding multifaceted issues including the understanding of linking traits to certain behavioral aspects, the understanding of the legislative system and court rulings and understanding what decisions and when these decisions should be justifiable to people within society. Providing education on such controversial and political issues to future generations could

There are two main ways genetic testing places a constraint on a child’s right to an open future. The first of these is that the revelation of a child’s disease status can change his life narrative and the way parents and others treat him, and substantially alter his or her life’s trajectory (Davis _____). Parents may feel guilty or shelter their not-yet-sick

Genetic testing has become a highly controversial issue among both the general population and the scientific community. It is a process that exposes a person’s entire genome sequence, allowing it to be read and evaluated to identify potential risks for genetic diseases or diseases that could be passed onto offspring (Holt Productions, 2012). With thousands of genetic tests already being used, and more being established, it seems logical to put this growing technology to use. Some agree that it is a person’s right to know and understand his or her genetic makeup. However, others argue that, despite the benefits of genetic testing, caution should be used to carefully inspect the risks associated with this new technology.

Genetic discrimination is judgement based on one’s genetic characteristics or chromosomes. In 2008, the “Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act” (GINA) was passed, this act would prohibit discrimination based on genetics; moreover, GINA would prevent employers and health insurance providers from increasing health insurance rates based on one’s genetic disposition, which I will discuss further. In this paper, I will discuss the key purpose of GINA, summarize the five congressional findings that impelled the formation of GINA.

An Enhanced Genotype: Ethical Issues Involved with Genetic Engineering and their Impact as Revealed by Brave New World

In the following, I will attempt to map out the current debate as it applies to genetic screening and testing, with special attention paid to the criticism offered by disability studies theory and disability rights advocates. I will begin with a brief overview of the traditional arguments in favor of reproductive liberty and a more permissive stance toward the use of genetic technology. This will include a discussion of autonomy as the underlying ethical principle at work, and the related focus on informed consent as both a guiding axiom and common target of criticism. The principle of beneficence is a crucial underlying

If the genetic information is only accessible to the individual then there is a decreased chance of such discrimination occurring because the information is disclosed to who the individual wishes to. Genetic information can raise questions about personal responsibility, personal choice versus genetic determinism, and concepts of health and disease. Personal factors, family values, and community and cultural beliefs can mould the reactions to these issues. For example the response to the genetic information and suggestion from physicians after the test will be drastically different in a society where traditions and religion determine life choices, such as India, than to a more individually liberal society like the USA. Even in a progressive society that has had specific ethnic groups for multiple generations disparities with medical technology are common. A study conducted, using the national representative data, in the USA with the sample that consisted of 1724 men and women of non-Hispanic whites, Latinos, and African American background. Results exposed significant differences by racial/ethnic groups in knowledge and concerns about the potential misuse of genetic testing. Significantly higher levels of mistrust in a physician and the medical system was a common thread within minorities. The genetic tests can be a way of ridding anxiety attached to the assumed inheritance of genetic disease due to family background whilst for others the genetic test reveals their reality. The results can have a great deal of a psychological impact upon the individual. The possibility of developing a genetic disease alone can create anxiety within some. The psychological impact from the results revealed is another issue that society is concerned about. A

The Human Genome Project introduces significant scientific findings to the world, but raises a lot of controversies. Many of these controversies concern the application of this new scientific finding and its ethicality. Genetic information from a project, once aimed towards mapping the human genome in hope for curing diseases, are now being used in businesses. It shouldn’t be permissible for employers to require that all employees, as well as potential employees, be screened for genetic vulnerabilities and to use the results of such screening when they make hiring, retention, and job assignment decisions. These genetic vulnerabilities may include diseases, unsuitable personality traits and other traits the company deems undesirable. Employees shouldn’t be judged by their genes, because the results do not adequately speak for what the employees will do in life, the employee’s position in the society, and the employee’s financial standing. Genetic testing should be an option for the employees to decide on job assignment rather than influence the hiring decisions of employers. Genetic testing only shows genetic potential, not potential growth. Conducting genetic testings on employees infringes on their privacy and encourage more social gaps with genetic classes.

Although the gene chip will enable an individual to know whether he/she has a genetic disease, that person may not want to know the information. Many people are frightened that a positive finding on a genetic test will result in discrimination and ostracism because the society will consider them abnormal (Easthope 2005). The other concern is that with genetic test information one might lose or might be unable to get a job or insurance. There have been concerns that with the knowledge of one’s medical information after a gene test, he/she might suffer a psychological problem especially when the results reveal that one suffers from a terminal disease or has high possibility of suffering from one (Willis 2009).

The sequencing of the human genome has a new approach to health care in regards to promotion, maintenance, and treatment. Genetic research is defined as a new approach to a better understanding of the genetic components of common diseases: Cancer, diabetes, stroke, and creating new gene-based technologies for screening, prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of both rare and common diseases. Nurses are a main aspect within the first line of care, and therefore will contribute fully in genetic-based and genomic-based practice activities such as collecting family history, obtaining informed consent for genetic testing, and administering gene-based therapies. Lea, D, (January 31, 2008). My paper is based on an article Genomics in the public

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.

The fear of genetic discrimination is a phobia gripping many people around the world. People find themselves asking, could my genetic information raise my health bills? Could this cause me to be rejected from a job opportunity? These anxieties are causing people to lash out at genetic research, and ultimately the human genome project. People do not want our understanding of human genomics to advance. This is because the risks of the development of the technology could inflict on them. A major risk is genetic discrimination. I believe that genetic discrimination is wrong and governments should continue to prevent it because it is an invasion of privacy, it violates equity, and it could really hurt people with genetic

Every living thing is the product of the genes that were passed down from ancestors. Genes make up everything we are. One gets their traits from their parents. Most people live full lives with relatively good health. However, some people inherit mutated genes or faulty genes. This could lead to genetic disorders that could be life threatening. Even today, many genetic disorders still remain incurable, leaving many people without hope. Genetic therapy could be their answer. It is through this research that the cure for genetic disorders can be found. Though some people believe it is unethical or immoral to alter genes, current therapeutics have not been able to save the lives of the patients with these diseases. Genetic therapy