Genetic Testing and Screening Essay

   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

Genetic testing is used to determine the risk of a patient or patient’s offspring developing genetic diseases. This is done with DNA sequencing in adults and preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PDG) on embryos. These methods of genetic testing are effective means of determining the likelihood of developing diseases such as Huntington’s disease, a disease resulting from trinucleotide repeat on chromosome 4p16.3 that causes uncontrollable muscle movement and decrease in cognitive function. However, they only determine probability, which isn’t an entirely reliable means of knowing whether or not symptoms will arise.

Gregory Stock, in his article Choosing Our Genes, asserts that at this point not ethics are important, but rather the future of genetic technology. Stock supports his conclusion by providing powerful examples of how genetic modifications can benefit our population anywhere from correcting genes at the time of conception to extending lifespan. He wants to inform his audience about all of the benefits of genetic technology in order to prove that there are way more advantages in this technology that are highly desirable by people of different ages. He reaches his readers by writing a very detailed yet coherent article that brings awareness to various groups of people from parents to be to older populations.

The benefits of genetic science for society is for employers who want to know if their employers are in excellent working condition and if the worker will cause them more money when obtaining health insurance. If an employer hires someone that that is healthy then the cost of health insurance does not rise and the employee will not have to downgrade their health insurance plan so that they can accommodate the employee that is not healthy. The limitations of genetic science for society are the possibility of genetic testing causing safety issues at work, the development of a genetic low class, the breach of privilege and confidentiality, and the utilization of genetic bias to excuse different methods of discrimination (Krumm, 2002).

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 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

As time goes on civilizations find innovations to make living a little bit easier. However, new frontiers often bring struggles. In Flackelmann’s articles on “ The Ethics of DNA Testing” four situations are given and later followed by a comprehensive analysis by both the public and by experts in ethics, law, genetics and any other various fields that correlate with the cases’ scenarios. The first scenario (titled “ A Case of Dwarfism”) describes the story of a couple who are carrying the gene for achondroplasia, meaning they both are dwarfs. The counselor tells the parents that through genetic testing they can find out whether or not the child will have dwarfism as well. The couple has made 3 decisions; the first being that if the child has

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 distress and the health risk to the mother are concerns when viewed through the lens of the principle of nonmaleficence or of “do no harm”. The accessibility and cost of the prenatal genetic testing are contentious. Although prenatal genetic testing is considered to be a useful tool, some believe it leads us down a “slippery slope”. Controversy exists surrounding prenatal genetic testing for reasons of social, psychological, moral, and religious rationales.

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.

In this critique, I will be discussing my opinion on Mr. Pollard’s article about genetic screening. These genetic screening began in the 1960’s and since then they have found themselves in the middle of major controversy throughout the years (Press, 2008). Genetic screening a series of test performed when a mother is pregnant in order to figure out whether or not her child may have a developing disorder. Some genetic screening are also performed after the baby is born. Genetic screening can play a major role in personal parenting decisions and medical treatment if and when deemed necessary. Although genetic screening has much debate surrounding it, testing for any potential disorders and diseases can be live saving.

As time progresses mankind continues to explore inward to discover more about our species and further our knowledge on the genetic blueprint of a human being. The Human Genome Project did just that. Through one of the greatest projects in history, we have already been able to further our knowledge on humans and map out all of the human genes (genome), and there is much more to come. But with this new knowledge comes a plethora important ethical questions regarding if what we are doing is right. A lot of ethical issues are questioned in areas such as in vitro fertilization, genetic counseling, prenatal testing for developmental defects, abortion, prenatal surgery, and care of extremely premature or severely handicapped infants.

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.

“A genetic test can reveal that a person who is otherwise healthy has a higher risk at some point in the future of being unable to work, or requiring extensive medical care, or otherwise being more predisposed to an adverse state of health” (Ahwaz Chagani & Philippe Michaud). Such personal information regarding someone’s health can in turn affect their employment and insurance policies. Genetic testing has its advantages and disadvantages towards the insurance industry and its stakeholders. It greatly affects the insurance industry as they are not allowed to know about one’s genetic information as the Genetic Non-Discrimination Act prohibits that. The impact on stakeholders is that it is advantageous to policyholders and in turn disadvantageous to shareholders and brokers and agents.