Persuasive Essay On Genetic Discrimination

While there are many benefits to genetically screening employees including the ability to capture and isolate potentially life-threatening diseases and conditions, in addition to the potential to help the employee and their family cope with

Privacy is also another big issue surrounding the plans for a database. Chairman of the New South Wales privacy council says that the prospect of a genetic database is a “cavalier disregard for people’s privacy”

The genetic information nondiscrimination act of 2008 protects people from losing their health insurance or employment due to genetic discrimination. The health insurance and portability act of 1966 (HIPAA) aids in prohibiting health insurers from being involved with genetic discrimination. States that publishing personal information will result in fines up to $250,000 and up to 10 years in jail.

Recent developments in technology have changed the delivery of health care and the system used to record and retrieve health information. In addition to using paper medical records, healthcare professionals, hospitals and insurers routinely use computers, phones, faxes, and other methods or recording and transferring information. In many instances, this information - which could include medical diagnoses, prescriptions, or insurance information - is readily available to anyone (including clerical and other staff) who walks by a fax machine or logs on to a computer. This lack of privacy has the potential to undermine patients' relationships with providers and adversely affect the quality of care. Patients may also fear that the exposure of personal health information, including the results of genetic tests that are becoming increasing available, could result in the loss or denial of health insurance, job discrimination or personal embarrassment.

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).

She also asserts that testing is a violation of the child’s privacy since she can no longer choose whether to disclose her test results to her parents. Thus, healthcare providers should protect any child’s ability to choose which information she shares with her parents, particularly if that information (as is the case with late onset genetic diseases) only becomes relevant in adulthood and will affect her choices in marriage or reproduction (Davis _____).

The ACLU believes that our medical and genetic information should be private and kept protected. No one should be able to demand this information and have it simply handed over. If a prospective employer pulled the medical records for their prospective employees, what would they find? Prescription drugs that may indicate mental health issues? Treatment for a “taboo” disease? Having this information easily accessible could be just another tool for discrimination. In the case Oregon Prescription Drug Monitoring Program v Drug Enforcement Administration, the ACLU protected private prescription drug information by arguing a probable cause warrant is needed before law enforcement obtains confidential prescription records. In Maryland v King, the government wanted to collect DNA samples from arrested individuals that had not been convicted of a crime. The ACLU opposed this expansion of DNA databases beyond convicted criminals, stating it provided no great benefit and was a major breach of privacy

Insures and employers should not have access to medical records because it encourages discrimination based on genetics.

However, confidentiality rights also protect the patient's health information and right to privacy. Another issue that arises concerns the confidentiality of HD diagnoses with relation to insurance companies. Many patients fear that they will be denied or will no longer be able to afford insurance coverage if the insurance company learns that they will one day have HD (Ethical issues of genetic diagnosis, 2007). Insurance companies may also begin to mandate that genetically-related individuals undergo predictive genetic testing for HD if one family member develops the disease (Ethical issues of genetic diagnosis, 2007).

<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.

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).

Genetic information can be identified at any point throughout a person’s lifespan from pre-conception until after death. In addition to heritable, biological information, family history, genetic test results, and medical records are also sources of genetic information” (Jenkins & Lea, 2005). We are put in a position to gather and retain information that could be utilized for a better future, but is confidentiality involved for the sake of profiting? Ask yourself, who should have access to genetic information? Who owns and controls it? How can families resolve conflicts when some members want to be tested for a genetic disorder and others do not?

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

2. Is it right to use genetic screening as a tool to keep tabs on their prospective enrollees?

In the context of this argument, discrimination is the unjust treatment of groups of people, specific in this argument, women and racial minorities. Discrimination often involves unfair denial of opportunity to a woman or minority from a source of power. While discrimination is wrong, it is not all the same and it does not all come from the same source. Discrimination can stem from things like emotions, specifically fear or hatred, rules and laws, and society. To compare discrimination, you must be comparing situations with the same cause. Comparing discrimination with different causes does not work since they are not coming from the same foundation. Comparison needs the same foundation so similarity in the situations are taken into consideration. The cause is a big enough difference that makes the cases incomparable. In discrimination cases, a situation that began from fear will be vastly different than a situation that began from a law. The reasoning for discrimination and how to handle the problem will be different. These situations have to be dealt with separately and they should not be compared as they are not similar enough for comparison.