Genetic testing involves taking small samples of hair or blood that contain a large amount of personal information. Genetic testing allows health care practitioners, and patients to know of a person’s vulnerability to inherited diseases, determination of a child parentage, or a person’s ancestry. “Predictive genetic testing has considerable potential for accurate risk assessment and appropriate targeting of screening and preventive strategies (Evans, 2001, para. 1). Storage of such personal information requires a high degree of security. Maintain patient confidentiality and ensuring proper storage would be the highest priority for companies that manage the genetic information. The ethical decision making toolkit is used to help determine the ethics related to the storage of genetic information. Utilitarianism is the principle that what is useful is good, the ethical value of conduct is determined by the utility of its result and that moral action is determined by the achievement of the greatest happiness for the greatest number (Business Dictionary, n.d.). Knowing genetic information that will be a predictor of disease would help prevent numerous genetic deformities. Reproductive decisions will impacted when the parents …show more content…
The debate would be associated with genetic testing of the embryo and the consideration if it seen as a person. If the embryo is considered a person, there is a rule to protect the innocent. There would also be rules in place to ensure that there is no chance of genetic information to be abused. However, the rules are not flexible, and it takes away decision making from the person. Compassion would also not be factored into the decision-making. This view would support genetic testing (EuroStemCell,
Paper 2 A person who owns a small portion of someone's genes may be the deciding factor on whether a person's illness is further researched or put on hold. Should a person be given this much power over our very genes inside us whose research could save lives and cure diseases? A physician, Michael Crichton, who wrote “Patenting Life” and a economist, John Calfee, who wrote “Decoding the Use of Gene Patents” both discuss this medicinal dilemma.
And although, these privacy protections did not cover genetic information, 12 years later congress passed the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) to fill the gap. (Stump) The National Institute of Health’s (NIH) now requires strict ethical standards including informed consent from all researchers seeking funding. These are steps in the right direction but just like anyone working in the medical field would tell you, there is still more to be done to ensure complete patient privacy and informed consent is the norm in every branch within the medical community. Whereas it took many years for the medical community to acknowledge the violations and origin of Henrietta’s cells it reassuring to see the progress that has been made to stamp out bad ethical behaviors.
DNA was the only thing that contributed to a little girl's death one friday night, when she collapsed from a heart attack suddenly. The doctor said it was simply in her genes, but what does that really mean? Certain mutations and differences can transpire in someone's genes which causes particular genetic diseases and variances to occur. By taking samples of a person's DNA, which is what our genes consist of, doctors can determine mutations in genes that can impact specific traits and illnesses. While this is very intriguing to me, I wanted to understand how accurate genetic testing is, and how it affects people's everyday lives.
After reading the articles,”Why We Should Think Twice About Giving Genetic Tests to Our Kids” ,by Michael White, and “Genetic Testing for Kids:Is It a Good Idea?”, by Bonnie Rochman, parents should not give these tests to their children. If the children did take the test the result would outway the benefits, they would have anxiety, and the testing doesn’t always work. One main reason that a child should not the test is ,they could have anxiety for the rest of their lives. If a child took the genetic test they could learn they have a deadly disease they don’t know about yet.
Gattaca shows many times that genetic testing can be beneficial and has completely taken over society but at the same time provides many hardships like discrimination against certain ranks of
Insurance companies who have genetic testing results can help give people much fairer prices on health insurance. People who may need more out of their health insurance, should pay more than those who don’t need much out of their health insurance. Sure these people don’t choose to have genetic disorders, but if you get in multiple car accidents, even if it’s not your fault, your insurance gets higher. Car insurance for those who get into more accidents, or have a bad driving
Genetic enhancement of humans, defined as the modification of non-pathological traits by transfer of genetic information, is a controversial issue with a broad spectrum of ethical positions. It is not difficult to imagine a future where reproductive technologies to improve the quality of the human species are routinely implemented, however there are a myriad of ethical issues that lead to different complexities, and therein answers, as to whether they should be. In this paper, I contend that even if the means of technology are available to increase the capabilities of the human mind in terms of intelligence, doing so must be done with caution and all consequential effects on the life forms that will result must be seriously considered. Reprogenetics,
1. Did you effectively research and debate your topic? Why or why not? Yes, I do believe that I effectively researched and debated my topic on mandatory genetic testing for athletes.
In recent years, testing of genetic material for disability or disease of an individual or their offspring has tremendously expanded knowledge for present and future disorders. The medical test of genetic screening is an examination of a population, identifying certain genotypes which display association with disease or susceptibility to disease, influence disease in descendants or fabricate other variations not known to be connected with disease (National Academy of Sciences, 1975). Some examples of the different types of genetic testing available include newborn screening, diagnostic testing, carrier testing, prenatal testing and forensic testing (Gehlert & Browne, 2006). Over the past couple of decades, there have been ongoing discussions on whether or not genetic screening should be encouraged, as testing presents limitations as well as benefits. Whilst the decision about whether to be screened should remain voluntary, as it is personal and complex, genetic screening should be ubiquitously endorsed and educated upon as it presents an improvement of the quality of life for those who are found to suffer a disease or disability and provides scientists and medical professionals with an
Today, genetic selection has become a reality and it is being applied widely as a case for selective abortion. Today,. A majority of parents are insisting on genetic selection to determine the health status of their child, their mental and cognitive capabilities before birth and thus utilize this as a justification for retaining a pregnancy or conducting what is widely being labeled as selective abortion. The case of recombinant DNA is fast gaining pace in animal and plant genetic engineering and the possibility of being applied in humans is rapidly gaining
Molecular genetics and human genome create new possibilities for thinking about the conduct of human beings as somatic individuals. Here genes act as the ‘ethical substance’ , that one works in relation to the self (reproduction, health, identity) and in relation to others(family, kinship). This actually put forward a new ethics formulated through biomedical subjectivity. In the Journal, Science, Technology, and Human Values, Brain Salter and Charlotte Salter identified bioethics as a ‘new epistemic power’ which is capable of setting agendas on the basis of an expert authority by governments to legitimize subsequent regulatory policy outputs.
The genetic testing also influences on the daily life of people. As I said, from people who got the bad results and they become depressed. That is very impactful to their working. They don't really pay attention to their job, but they just think about their disease. That is understandable.
Many questions arise when discussing such controversial issues (Jaenisch et al.). Some of these questions include "the central, apparently unresolvable issue of the moral status of the human embryo, which raises questions about which perspectives should govern appropriate pluralistic policy" (Jaenisch et al.). There are also questions as to how to weigh the "possible scientific breakthroughs" with the "less quantifiable values and perspectives" (Jaenisch et al.). While there are decent arguments on how the copying of a human being could be
Introduction This paper will explore the notion of genetic discrimination and its effects on the population currently then the future. This topic is quite controversial because of the flexible laws that are put in place. It is also a controversial topic because of its age. The length that genetic discrimination has been a problem is significantly shorter than many issues that are discussed in this manner.
Therefore, society needs to be careful and not allow genetic testing to diminish our right to privacy and confidentiality. Genetic testing can provide only limited information about an inherited condition and cannot conclude if or when a person will show signs of a disorder or its severity (National Library of Medicine, 2018). The majority of diseases can be attributed to environmental factors, including occupation, diet, and lifestyle (Genetic Information and the Workplace, 1998). While genetic testing can provide valuable information for individuals with known family history of cancers or other diseases, the pros and cons for the tests need to be carefully weighed, the information shared wisely and carefully protected. “Alleviating the fear was one of the primary purposes of GINA, so that we would all benefit from these advances in genetic medicine, rather than having to hide from them (Shapiro,