Prenatal Genetic Testing Raise Ethnic Issues

   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

However, it doesn’t mean that people are not going to have disabled babies even though they have gone through testing prior to birth. In many cases, advanced techniques fail to tell if the baby will have psychological problems which can only be discovered after birth. Moreover, this doesn’t mean that parents or future parents cannot have kids for fear of having a disabled child. For example, in the article called “Deaf Culture and Cochlear Implants” by Boinne Poitra’s Tucker says that culturists of deaf society advocate that is mandatory to have a genetic test to see if the child is going to be born deaf as they believe is the best for him. However, if a potential parent is deaf or there is genetic factor that put in the predicament of having a disable child, they can have the test done before conceiving to know how the child is going to be or to choose other ways of making a family. Another approach for parents about having a child with Down syndrome is to abort that fetus. For example, there are tests to detect if a child has Down syndrome early in the pregnancy. Now, it is my argument that why bring to this world a human being that will suffer in many areas including socially, cognitively, and biologically. Moreover, in the reading “The Infant Does Case” there was a case in which a woman has a Down syndrome baby with major

With the increasing number of families considering adoption and a larger proportion of children originating from poor conditions combined with technological advancements, the demand to have more information about the adoptee has been increasing. Arguing as to what extent is morally justifiable, Kimberly J Leighton's article 'Accepting Adoption's uncertainty: The limited Ethics of Pre-Adoption Genetic testing’ concludes that pre-adoption genetic testing (PAGT) beyond current testing limits should not be permissible and available for adoptive parents.

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.

Have you ever experienced life in someone else's shoes? Meet Sarah. To say Sarah has a disability would be an understatement. Sitting in her house, Sarah lives with disabilities along with her parents who take care of her twenty-four hours a day.

There is much controversy around the issue of genetic testing. These controversial issues range from being "unnatural" or against god 's will. There are several different ways to tests genetics but they all have one thing in common: they test for changes or mutations in chromosomes, genes, and proteins. These tests can provide answers for many families who want to know whether their children have become inflicted with a condition due to their family 's genetics, the health of the mother during the gestational period, or by some strange twist of the unknown. Despite all of the controversy, Genetic Testing is acceptable for determining whether an unborn child is at risk of developing a debilitating and/or deadly condition, relieving the worry of parents, and preemptively treating any condition that the child may have.

Third, prenatal genetic screening is an unreliable way to judge one’s quality of life. One reason is that it’s inaccurate, inconsistent, and incomplete. Prenatal genetic screening does not give accurate diagnoses of disabilities, but merely the probability that a possible child might have a mutated gene, which might cause a disorder. In his Second Edition Bioethics text, Lewis Vaughn says that, “…a positive test result (one identifying a mutation) does not guarantee the development of a genetic disorder”. And for more complicated disabilities that are caused by several mutated genes combined with environmental factors, the chances of an accurate test result are even far slimmer. Another reason is that an accurate and positive test result does not necessarily adversely affect the possible child’s quality of life. If a child is born deaf, he is living a life that he has been accustomed to since birth and is not aware of another way of life. His quality of life, to his own awareness and standard, is not affected like it

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.

Ethical issues for prenatal testing currently are on the rise. In most medical tests, there are always ethical issues that come with the progress. Prenatal screenings are still something that is fairly new to the world. Since there are many types of tests and advancements to the screenings, there are many ethical issues. Many of the ethical issues are the psychological and emotional effects, ethics concerning religion, if the tests are purely for information, and other ethical issues that are coming forward.

With the recent advancements in genetic technology, it is now possible for us to recognize and diagnose defects during the pregnancy stage of development. The Genetic Interest Group (2004) says, "For parents at risk of having a child with a genetic disorder, testing of embryos prior to implantation or during pregnancy is an important option." There are certain individuals who reject the idea of prenatal genetic testing simply because they are against the action of abortion; however, performing genetic testing during the pregnancy stage is still a decision to be made by the mother. (Gillot, 2001). In speaking of genetic screening for cystic fibrosis, Murray and Cuckle (1999) boldly state that, "The aim of genetic screening for CF is to reduce the birth prevalence of the disorder. This is primarily achieved by identifying carrier couples that can have prenatal diagnosis and selective termination of pregnancy." Although there are many implications for prenatal genetic testing, viewing this from a utilitarian perspective we can see that genetic testing with the aim of selectively terminating fetuses with disabling but otherwise manageable or curable diseases is unethical. Furthermore, selective termination from a

They feel that prospective parents should have the right to use existing embryo screening tests to determine all possible characteristics of offspring. Unless a tangible harm to specific individuals can be evidenced, those of this belief argue that selection of offspring traits is a liberty all parents should have (Harris 185). George Annas, chairman of the Health Law Department at the Boston University School of Public Health, writes from this viewpoint, “Prenatal tests become a consumer product, and as with other consumer products it should be up to the individual whether or not to buy the product, and physicians and companies should be free to advertise and sell the product in any misleading way” (Annas 265). Annas fears that such an attitude will make parents more likely to perceive their children as products rather than people. Another likely harm may be that prenatal testing will only be a feasible option for the wealthy. If the likelihood of genetic disease in the wealthy decreases and other citizens do not have access to PGD, will genetic disease perhaps be associated only with the economically unprivileged? Others may argue that parents already try to shape their children in certain ways, and adding the genetic dimension to their influence would not be very different. For example, Robertson writes: “Parents now have wide discretion to enhance offspring traits after birth with actions that range from the purely social and educative, such as special tutors and training camps, to the physio-medico…such actions may give the child advantages over other children, exacerbate class and socioeconomic differences, and risk treating the child like a product or object to serve the parent’s interests. Yet they fall within a parent’s discretion in rearing offspring, and could not constitutionally be banned” (Robertson 164). PGD is perfectly permissible in terms of law,

Loss of privacy, psychological disorders and testing errors are risks of genetic testing. However, certain genetic testing methods, such as carrier screening and preimplantatioin diagnostic testing can help parents prevent potential diseases their child may get. I would say it shoule not be implemented in healthcare today. At first, I found on the Internet that the cost of genetic testing can range from under $100 to more than $2000. As I tend to stereotype these types of advanced technology as expensive and hard to implement, I am wondering if the under $100 testing can get any effective results. Thus, people from higher socioeconomic status are more likely to be benefited from genetic testing, not lower SES people. Secondly, gene carriers

The drawbacks of genetic testing are: A) when a person is believed to have a genetic disorder, he or she is prone to discrimination, prejudice or ridiculed from other people. Employers are hesitant in hiring these individuals because they are believed to pose a risk to other workers. Also, they are a liability because their disorders can compromise their job performance. B) Genetic testing is also shown to be related to certain diseases that are used by insurance industries to deny people coverage. Insurance companies believed that individuals with abnormal genetic disorders may generate potential higher costs that are not suitable for business. C) When the test result is positive it leads to depression, the victim is saddened to believe that they are carrying a harmful disease (Darden Business Publishing, 2004).

     Not only can the fetus be cured of disorders, but it also decrease the probabilities

The panel of PBS program Making Better Babies focused greatly on genetic testing in relation to its scientific and social effects. There were many opposing ideas and concerns coming from different perspectives such as those of expecting parents, genetic counselor, scientists and genetic disease sufferers. Coming from Vietnam where technology is more limited, I have learned multiple new concepts from the arguments made on the show, many of which surprised me.