The Pros And Cons Of 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

Many people have a negative outlook on prenatal genetic testing but that is because they are not educated on the goals

A Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD) is a test that “allows future parents to detect genetic defects that cause inherited disease in human embryos before they are implanted.” One of the most ethical questions that one might ask before considering the PGD is whether the benefits of genetic knowledge outweigh harmful effects that occur to the embryo? Is it really worth manipulating embryos genes in order to achieve the desire of the parents? Often times we have to take into considerations the risk and benefits of each situation. I believe that the PGD test should be only be done to detect genetic defects, but it should not be used to manipulate genes in order to make what to them is a “perfect” child. As stated in our text, “ In the united Kingdom alteration of an embryos genes, even for gene therapy or cloning embryos is illegal.” By manipulating genes its like going against Gods wishes. In the eyes of God every person that comes into this world is equally seen as a human being because they are all created in “ the image of God.” In this case the parents should not be allowed to manipulate the genes of their unborn child just to accommodate to their

PGD is known as pre-implantation genetic diagnosing. I do not think it is ethical to design and conceive a child that meets specific genetic requirements. I do not feel that this is an ethical reason to conceive a child. Rather, I believe all children should be seen as blessings or gifts, not sacrificial genetic progeny.

What are the most serious genetic diseases and what are the pros and cons of genetic testing?

Darnovsky suggests that although many genetic scientists support germline engineering because it can potentially resist transfer of hereditary mutations, these scientists fail to mention that preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) does the same effect in allowing a technician to screen embryos for traces of diseases and simply deliver any non-infected embryos to the mother’s body. In conjunction, Darnovsky endorses the alternative of prenatal screening with the option of abortion to avoid the use of in vitro fertilization. Cohan, however, observes that it would dubious for the Court to restrict a woman’s reproductive rights to use germline technology while people are already using reproductive technologies such as in vitro fertilization, artificial insemination, and surrogacy. He asserts that the right to use these reproductive technologies is protected by law, and implies that it would be hypocritical for the government to restrict use of germline technology while these other reproductive technologies are still in effect.

Gina Kolata’s article, Ethics Questions Arise as Genetic Testing of Embryos Increases (2014), explains that as the increase of the testing of embryos for parents to choose whether or not to have children has also brought its ethical questions in the light. Kolata uses the Kalinskys case, a family in the article, and how their neurological disease, Gerstmann-Straussler-Schinker (GSS), has raised questions for ethicists who have looked into the case. Kolata’s purpose in writing this article is to inform the audience on the growing topic of embryo testing and also the ethical question that also accompany in order to have the audience to develop a personal view on the issue. Given how the author explains the technical terms used within the article, Kolata is writing to an audience that is not fully aware of genetic testing.

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 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”

Genetic testing has become a highly controversial issue among both the general population and the scientific community. It is a process that exposes a person’s entire genome sequence, allowing it to be read and evaluated to identify potential risks for genetic diseases or diseases that could be passed onto offspring (Holt Productions, 2012). With thousands of genetic tests already being used, and more being established, it seems logical to put this growing technology to use. Some agree that it is a person’s right to know and understand his or her genetic makeup. However, others argue that, despite the benefits of genetic testing, caution should be used to carefully inspect the risks associated with this new technology.

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.

Pre-screening for disabilities and genetic enhancement are vital factors in the decision to place restrictions for selective genetic abortion. All human life should be of equal worth, supporting the ideal that life-and-death decisions for seriously compromised newborns should not be based on the quality of life (CITE 3). Screening for genetic diseases through the use of in vitro fertilization, or IVF, limits and excludes those with disabilities from our society, exposing limits on morality. These include transgression of divine laws, transgression of natural laws, introduction of an unacceptable risk of harm, introduction of a threat to genetic diversity, introduction of a threat to one’s common genetic heritage, paradoxical counterproductively, a misuse of social resources, a widened gap between the “haves and “have nots”, promotion of social conformity and homogeneity, and lastly undermining free choice (Fisher, 2013). From these points it is important to recognize the impact it has upon our society, and how we perceive, and behave towards those with a disability. The practise of introducing selective abortion through the use of IVF and genetic testing will create a hostile environment going forward into the future for those who escape detection before birth. This will cause potential discrimination against those with a disability, making them liable to be looked down upon by the community and unfit to be alive (Fisher, 2013). Thus this can create a second class or even a

Those procedures make ways for persons that would otherwise have no hope of conception to conceive, and give birth to healthy babies, but on the other hand, as the technology has developed, ethical issues surrounding these methods have as well. Some philosophers like Gillian Hanscombe feels that “it is untenable and uncivilized to deny the right to any individual just on the basis that they engage in a particular type of sex practice.” (class notes) Therefore, in this instance, lesbians and gays should have the right to parenthood, whether it’s by surrogate or by sperm insertion, and it should not be looked at as unethical. When it comes to third-party reproduction or surrogacy, Purdy feels that it is not unethical and “argues that it is routine to do so.” (class notes) Though third party reproduction involves risks and raise many important ethical concerns, she also argues that “parents should guarantee that any child they have possess normal health.” (class notes) Therefore, in her opinion, the creation and selection of embryos is ethical. On the other hand, Michael Tooley opposes her opinion and “argues that the practice is not in principle morally acceptable given our level of understanding but could offer some benefits in the future.” (class

The topic of genetic testing is laced with controversy. The question at hand is “Does genetic testing provide more advantages or disadvantages?” There are plenty of well-researched and well-articulated arguments on each side of this discussion. During my time researching the topic, I flip-flopped my position multiple times, something that could very well continue to happen as I deepen my understanding of the issue. My current opinion is that despite the many advantages of genetic testing, the disadvantages still outweigh them. I feel this way for a variety of reasons: 1) Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis is eerily similar eugenics; 2) Discrimination may occur as a result of the information provided by genetic testing; 3) Abnormal results may cause depression or anxiety even if that person does not suffer from a particular disease.

Although PGD is a relatively new procedure, there are several ethical questions surrounding its use. One question is, "Should parents be allowed to choose characteristics for their children that are not related to disorders such as their baby’s eye color, personality, or even the sex of their baby?" [Wekesser,1996]. Until the genes responsible for inherited traits such as the previously mentioned are mapped, this is not an issue. If scientists do not know where the gene is located, they are unable to create a test determining the presence of the gene. However, because we do know how the sex of a child is determined, a specific gender can be screened for. Many believe that this should