Inaccuracy In Genetic Testing

   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 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.

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).

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 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

The world we live in is advancing more and more every day. We are beginning to exceed boundaries and reach new limits. Science and Technology has come a long way since Copernicus said that the sun was the center of the universe. Science fiction is slowly coming to life. We are building robots that are extremely similar to humans, modifying genes, and creating clones. Authors wrote about these abstract ideas not too long ago, but at the time they seemed far-fetched. Scientific and technological advancement may be for good or for evil. The good side is the advancements in medicine that could limit the risk of a particular disease or even cure one. The potentially bad side is the steps we may take to get there without knowing the long-term effect. In Michael Bess’s article “Blurring the Boundary Between Person and Product,” he discusses the advancement of genetic

Engineering, edited by David M. Haugen and Susan Musser, Greenhaven Press, 2009. Opposing Viewpoints. Opposing Viewpoints in Context, link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/EJ3010138265/OVIC?u=j170902014&xid=541f199b. Accessed 24 Feb. 2017. Originally published as "The Threat of Human Genetic Engineering," www.hgalert.org/topics/hge/threat.htm.

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).

With the enormous advancement of Technology in many areas of Genetic Diagnosis, parents and doctors seem to defy Mother Nature and maybe even God every day. An example of this phenomenon is Pre-Implantation Genetic Diagnosis. Do the advantages this technology brings outweigh the disadvantages? Who should be final authority? Will the advancement of

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.

To receive accurate data, scientist must test the experiment which could result in deaths. In addition, another article called “Gene Therapy” from World of Genetics, elucidated that germline therapy carried three major drawbacks. The article states, “Arguments specifically against the development of germ-line gene therapy techniques include:1) germ-line gene therapy experiments involves too much scientific uncertainty and clinical risks, and the long term effects of such therapy are unknown; 2) it opens the door to attempts at altering human traits not associated with disease that could exacerbate problems of social discrimination,” [20]. A test subject who agrees is agreeing for themselves, not their future children nor their childern childern. Additionally, the uncertain effects on future generations has yet to be

A family can be given the option to abort a pregnancy with a positive result for a genetic disorder, or be discouraged from having more children or any children based on their genomes. Many would argue that this inappropriately interferes with the “natural course of things”, or to some, “God’s Creation”. Another taboo issue attached to the topic of genetic research is cloning, and the implications of having two exactly identical entities in existence at the same time, and what their uses could be. Genetics and genomics are also used in vaccinations and immunizations, as well as biotechnical mass production exogenous human hormones. Bacteria can be loaded with the gene to create human insulin, and they will perform that function tirelessly, like a mill. Doctors have proposed loading a virus with a gene of choice and injecting it into a human being to take advantage of the mechanism of the virus and change someone’s DNA. There are some that would argue that these discoveries warrant complete eradication of certain diseases, due to the ability to do so. Ones that definitively harm the body, such as Ebola, drug-resistant strains of staph and strep, and E. Coli are investigated using genetic information from those microorganisms. On the other hand, with the early detection of intellectual disability and mental retardation, diseases such as down syndrome could be eradicated as well. While this science is