Genetic Choices: A Case Study

Currently, most people generally accept a doctor’s word as truth and do not question him or her. When it comes to the medical field, patients can often feel overwhelmed by all the confusing medical terms being thrown at them, so they tend to sit back and do as the doctor says. Healthcare professionals sometimes take advantage of this fact and withhold important information from their patients. For instance, a study conducted by Lisa Lezzoni, MD, and her peers states that more than half of physicians lied to their patients about their diagnosis to put a more positive spin on it (Lezzoni, Rao, DesRoches, Vogeli, and Campbell). Healthcare professionals should disclose to the patient any information pertaining to the patient.

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”

A lot of controversial issues present themselves in psychology. Two topics that I will be discussing in this essay are the controversy over genetic testing and what things would be like without genetic testing. I will be describing what genetic testing is, and how it can affect an individual’s family life. I will be discussing the benefits of genetic counseling, as well as the positives without genetic counseling, and how this issue is debated in a psychological view.

Genetics has become a very important topic of discussion in the healthcare field. There are more and more diseases being linked to certain genes in the DNA. Carrier: Untangling the danger in my DNA, by Bonnie J. Rough, is one example of the modern problems people have to deal with in regards to genetics and genetic testing. The author writes about the problems she faced. She had some very difficult decisions about her possible offspring as well as herself. Rough writes about her struggle with deciding if she should get a genetic test for a gene that causes a disease that has been passed on through her families for generations. The reader also learns about her and her husband’s experience of getting pregnant and the steps they took to try

In the medical field or any other professions, privacy is paramount. One of the most important things is confidentiality. In this case, patients should be able to trust that they treating physicians will not disclose their personal information to other parties without their consent. The question then becomes: Under what circumstances is it alright for physicians to disclose private medical information to third party without informed consent? Did Dr. Shapiro have the right to disclose Mr. Lovington’s private medical information to his wife Anna, who is also his patient?

Understanding the significance of Rachel’s genetic test results provides an ethical dilemma as her provider. Ethically, the provider is responsible for doing what is best for the individual but must also adhere to legal standards. It is the responsibility of the provider to encourage Rachel to share the significance of her findings with both of her sisters and to ensure she completely understands the implications of the results and the potential negative impact of not informing her sister. The provider may suggest Rachel attend genetic counseling for a better understanding and encourage her to communicate with Lisa who may be willing to communicate with Kristin the genetic findings. However, if Rachel chooses not to do this, the provider must abide by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPPA) which ensures one’s health information remains confidential and does not disclose this information to anyone without Rachel’s consent to prevent any legality issues (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, n.d.).

I will argue that it isn’t permissible to withhold information from Merry regarding her medical condition. First, I’ll begin discussing the autonomy and paternalism in the context of the doctor-patient relationship. Second, conceptual issues of ethical dilemma, soft and hard paternalism, and the proposed justification of its implications. Perhaps the strongest argument is how a patient should be treated when they are not acting fully rational.

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

<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.

The importance of informed consent and physician-patient communication was highlighted. The procedure to be performed or other treatment options must be well-explained, and the implication and possible conflicts that may arise should be discussed in order to minimize the occurrence of difficult situations like the cases presented in this session. With the current healthcare system, however, where physicians are severely limited in how much they can spend time with the patient

In the US, the initial system concentrated on physician knowledge about an intervention and not the patient requirement, i.e., the physician was to decide the best practice as well as information to disclose to a patient. However, there was a recognizable trend towards the informed consent (Culhane et al., 2012). A case between Salgo and Leland Stanfors Jr. University Board of Trustees clearly provided a clear indication of the court resistance and struggle to adopt the autonomous approach rather than the physician paternalism (Culhane et al., 2012). The jury argued that the patient has the right to information of any risk associated with a practice. However, they argued for the physician in the sense that he/she is placed in a position to make choices that protect the patient.

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.

In this situation, the choice the doctor makes is vital. Whether or not he tells the patient his condition will not change the patient's condition, it will remain the same. In “A Small Good Thing” the Weiss was on the opposite side of this dilemma, their child was in an accident and they were told everything was fine when it was not. The Weisses were told numerous time that the child was “okay” or that he is likely to survive when in reality he was fighting for his life. In this situation, the Weiss were lied to so that they would not be

In addition to law it is the ethical responsibility of all healthcare providers to disclose information to the patient about adverse or potential adverse outcomes.

One ethical dilemma Anthony has encountered is helping the family understand where their loved one is currently standing. Communicating life threatening news takes courage and certain factors need to be taken into consideration. In the textbook, The Last Dance it is stressed that physicians must “consider the patient’s personality, emotional constitution, and capacity for continued function under stress.” Communication is essential and how and when the life threatening news is conveyed is an essential part of this process. Furthermore, DeSpelder and Strickland (2009) say that “how the diagnosis is communicated can influence a patient attitude toward the illness, response to treatment, ability to cope.”