More handpicked essays just for you.
Is genetic testing morally right
Pros cons of genetic testing ethically
Benefits to genetic testing at individual and societal level
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
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” (Davis, 75). The availability of commercial online and mail-order genetic testing kits further exacerbates this dilemma by enabling these dissenting parents to obtain test results for their children. Davis ultimately makes a convincing argument that “parental requests for genetic information about their children, when they have no immediate relevance to medical intervention or disease prevention, should generally be resisted” (Davis, 87). This paper seeks to demonstrate that in the case of testing for incurable, late onset genetic diseases, protecting the rights and interests of the child should take precedence over parental autonomy, and that there is a marked need for tighter regulation of commercial genetic testing in order to protect these rights.
Davis bases her argument against testing children for untreatable, late onset genetic diseases (hereafter referred to as “testing”) on the fact that testing is a violation of a child’s right to an open future. Davis feels that while parents ...
... middle of paper ...
...is’ recommendation that the information be kept in a separate area of the patient file, secret from both the parents and patient until reproductive or disease onset issues emerge.
Perhaps the blind prophet Tiresias said it best in Sophocles’ tragedy, Oedipus the King, when the guilty but oblivious Oedipus demanded to know who murdered King Laius: “It is but sorrow to be wise when wisdom profits not.” In the absence of useful medical interventions, it is best to not perform childhood or prenatal genetic screening for late onset diseases. We are obligated to protect their rights to privacy, to choose whether to be tested, and to open futures. When dealing with such emotionally loaded medical information, we must protect children’s freedom to choose what information they share with their parents, and more importantly, what information they know about themselves.
Dena Davis in the 5th chapter of “Genetic Dilemmas: Reproductive Technology, Parental Choices, and Children’s Futures” explores the global attitudes, policies, and morality towards determination of sex. She begins with presenting empirical evidence of some preferences held in countries such as India or China where there is a clear desire for male children. This inclination is so deeply held that mothers can be socially and physically harmed when, by pure biological chance, they fail to produce a male child. Davis and others allow sex selection in these cases, purely in the interest of harm reduction of mothers and their daughters born into such a situation. This example is contrasted with so-called “western” societies, where the preference
Studies to make the process quicker and cleaner are under development.... ... middle of paper ... ... Insurance providers and other holders of genetic information should be prohibited from releasing genetic information (Hudson, 1998). Guidelines like these need to be formed into a federal law that people can pass in one way or another so that we can be protected from the various forms of discrimination that is possible with this kind of information.
With Dolly, scientists were able to clone her, but she only lived half the age as her mother. Yet, the root was determined, and further studies showed great promise, all with the usage of biotechnology with no immoral harm done to the animals that were utilized for the procedures, without the violation of any rights, such as the right to autonomy. While an opposer to genetic enhancements may say this right is violated because the individual’s future is no longer open, but is it really predetermined? For a parent to choose their child’s genetic makeup, it can be related to easily with a parent to withhold a child’s right to pursuing one thing over another, career-wise or
In the film, two contrasting examples of genetic testing are shown. The first example is of the twins Noah and Alexis Beery, who are stricken with a rare disease that mimics cerebral palsy. Through genetic testing, doctors discovered that the twins could be treated with dopamine. By sequencing their entire genome, the twin’s lives were saved. The second example is Andrew S...
Without patient confidentiality, patients would not be willing to tell about themselves or their family member for fear of it getting out (tTelegraph). If they were asked
The history of harmful eugenic practices, spurring from the Nazi implementations of discrimination towards biologically inferior people has given eugenics a negative stigma (1,Kitcher, 190). Genetic testing, as Kitcher sees it through a minimalistic perspective, should be restrained to aiding future children with extremely low qualities of life (2,Kitcher, 190). He believes that genetic engineering should only be used to avoid disease and illness serving the role of creating a healthier human race. He promotes laissez-faire eugenics, a “hands off” concept that corresponds to three components of eugenic practice, discrimination, coercion and division of traits. It holds the underlying works of genetic testing, accurate information, open access, and freedom of choice. Laissez-faire eugenics promises to enhance reproductive freedom preventing early child death due to genetic disease (3,Kitcher, 198). However there are dangers in Laissez-faire that Kitcher wants to avoid. The first is the historical tendency of population control, eugenics can go from avoiding suffering, to catering to a set of social values that will cause the practice of genetics to become prejudiced, insensitive and superficial. The second is that prenatal testing will become limited to the upper class, leaving the lower class with fewer options, creating biologically driven social barriers. Furthermore the decay of disability support systems due to prenatal testing can lead to an increased pressure to eliminate those unfit for society (4,Kitcher, 214).
If two parents get tested and find out that their child could have the disease, they could choose to get an abortion, which would be abusing the benefits of genetic testing. In the Jewish testing article it says “or they may choose to end the pregnancy” (Goldschmidt). In this case, taking the life of an unborn child due to genetic testing is an example of how genetic testing can be morally unsound. Also, if a cure is found for genetic testing, the treatments can be very harsh. In the Patients in Limbo article is says “every month for the first two years of her life” (Marcus). Although a cure was found, this child had to undergo extreme treatment in order to have the chance of being cured for the condition. As just a young child, depending on the type of treatment it is, this can be too extreme for such a young patient and can deteriorate the young ones body. In this situation, although genetic testing led to results, it also led to things that can cause pain and suffering, which is not what genetic testing should be used to
The diseases that exist in our world are enough to make medicine and testing the only option of hope in times of need. People grow up happy and healthy, only to be diagnosed, in their middle age, with an adult-onset disease. These diseases only become a burden as the victim gets older. Some commonly known ones are Alzheimer’s or Huntington’s disease. There is no cure or treatment for adult-onset diseases like this. Knowing that the victims have these diseases written in their DNA from the moment they were born leads to an interesting argument. Several communities argue about whether parents or guardians should have the right to test their children for these diseases. There are many arguments, however, that stem from the social and ethical aspect of the effects it could have on the kids.
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 addressed: When should genetic testing be used? And who should have access to the results of genetic tests? As I intend to show, genetic tests should only be used for treatable diseases, and individuals should have the freedom to decide who has access to their test results.
Morris, D. T. (1993). Cost containment and reproductive autonomy: Prenatal genetic screening and the American health security act of 1993. American Journal of Law & Medicine, 20, 295-316.
In today’s world, people are learning a great deal in the rapidly growing and developing fields of science and technology. Almost each day, an individual can see or hear about new discoveries and advances in these fields of study. One science that is rapidly progressing is genetic testing; a valuable science that promotes prevention efforts for genetically susceptible people and provides new strategies for disease management. Unnaturally, and morally wrong, genetic testing is a controversial science that manipulates human ethics. Although genetic testing has enormous advantages, the uncertainties of genetic testing will depreciate our quality of life, and thereby result in psychological burden, discrimination, and abortion.
Genetic testing, also known as screening, is a rapidly advancing new scientific field that can potentially revolutionize not only the world of medicine, but many aspects of our lives. Genetic screening is the sequencing of human DNA in order to discover genetic differences, anomalies, or mutations that may prove pathological. As genetic screening becomes more advanced and easily accessible, it presents society with difficult questions that must be asked about the boundaries of science and to what degree we are allowed to tamper with the human genome. To better understand the potential impact of genetic screening on our society, we must examine the potential benefits in comparison to the possible negative impact it may cause. With this knowledge in hand, we can examine what the future holds for this field of study and the best possible direction to take.
First of all, I want to start by saying that I 'm not discriminating the disabled community, but this is a very large number that could possibly be diminished with the help of genetic testing. (1) I believe that there is nothing wrong with testing the genes of an unborn child to possibly determine if it could develop a genetic disorder in the future. One of the advantages that genetic testing provides is that the parents could now be informed of the situation, and keep track of their unborn child 's health. I 'm sure those parents are pleased with this technology, and the chances to be able to keep track of their baby. This a baby, and is something very precious, and valuable, and I believe that parents want to keep track of anything that may happen with the unborn child. I 'm sure that a large amount of people would agree would agree that they don 't want to suddenly take the hard hit. When the news is presented in the delivery room. This serves more as an advantage than a disadvantage, due to the fact parents. Pull be more prepared, or possibly have the option to abort it. This is a right that the parents should have regardless of the opposing side arguments towards it. Im a hundred percent sure that the opposing side has very strong arguments towards genetics testing, and one of the main ones is "playing God." The opposing side believed that some things in
There are some questions a patient 's doctor must be a secret, you can not tell a third party about the problem. Another example, if a teenager says to a doctor, "I am depressed, I have been trying to kill myself" ( "Youth confidential: a young person 's right to privacy"). Doctors are not sure of information, because the doctor is this guy right help. Teen confidentiality concerns may be an important barrier to access to health services. Adolescents have the right to contraception confidentiality when it comes to contraception.
The writer discusses a situation of the doctor failing to disclose the nature of important medical condition which can jeopardize several of the patient’s family members and puts the doctor at odds with them. The problem is also discussed by Sutrop (2011) who show how protecting the patient’s confidentiality and self- decision capacity has actually caused severe hindrances to the field of scientific development and research.