Genetic Testing and Screening Essay

Gregory Stock, in his article Choosing Our Genes, asserts that at this point not ethics are important, but rather the future of genetic technology. Stock supports his conclusion by providing powerful examples of how genetic modifications can benefit our population anywhere from correcting genes at the time of conception to extending lifespan. He wants to inform his audience about all of the benefits of genetic technology in order to prove that there are way more advantages in this technology that are highly desirable by people of different ages. He reaches his readers by writing a very detailed yet coherent article that brings awareness to various groups of people from parents to be to older populations.

The last 150 years have seen the origin of—and rapid expansion in—human knowledge involving the nature and mechanisms of trait and disease inheritance in human beings. Advances in genetic research hold great promise for the future development of effective prevention and treatment strategies for a great many, often devastating, heritable conditions. However, these advances also raise a series of policy, legal and fundamentally ethical questions concerning what we should and should not do with the knowledge and technology we acquire. These questions are numerous and both imminently practical and speculative, ranging from the exhausted, yet still largely unresolved, question of the moral status of the human embryo to fears about slippery slopes into a Brave New World or Gattaca-style dystopic future characterized by designer children and a genetic underclass.

Eugenics is a contentious topic of issue with many ethical implications, especially with advancements in current genetic science. It harbours different definitions to describe it, but they all subscribe to improve the human gene pool through selective reproductive practices, including prenatal testing or preimplantation genetic diagnosis (Wilkins & Garrard, 2). These practices are designed to reduce undesirable traits, such as genetic disease, or to increase desirable ones, such as effective immune systems or intelligence. In this paper, I discuss different controversial issues and ethical dilemmas in regards to pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) practices and why PGD practices should not be supported.

Genetic testing is used to determine the risk of a patient or patient’s offspring developing genetic diseases. This is done with DNA sequencing in adults and preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PDG) on embryos. These methods of genetic testing are effective means of determining the likelihood of developing diseases such as Huntington’s disease, a disease resulting from trinucleotide repeat on chromosome 4p16.3 that causes uncontrollable muscle movement and decrease in cognitive function. However, they only determine probability, which isn’t an entirely reliable means of knowing whether or not symptoms will arise.

   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

What level of prenatal genetic testing for abnormalities acts with beneficence to the patient, and what level of trait selection is ethical?

If the genetic information is only accessible to the individual then there is a decreased chance of such discrimination occurring because the information is disclosed to who the individual wishes to. Genetic information can raise questions about personal responsibility, personal choice versus genetic determinism, and concepts of health and disease. Personal factors, family values, and community and cultural beliefs can mould the reactions to these issues. For example the response to the genetic information and suggestion from physicians after the test will be drastically different in a society where traditions and religion determine life choices, such as India, than to a more individually liberal society like the USA. Even in a progressive society that has had specific ethnic groups for multiple generations disparities with medical technology are common. A study conducted, using the national representative data, in the USA with the sample that consisted of 1724 men and women of non-Hispanic whites, Latinos, and African American background. Results exposed significant differences by racial/ethnic groups in knowledge and concerns about the potential misuse of genetic testing. Significantly higher levels of mistrust in a physician and the medical system was a common thread within minorities. The genetic tests can be a way of ridding anxiety attached to the assumed inheritance of genetic disease due to family background whilst for others the genetic test reveals their reality. The results can have a great deal of a psychological impact upon the individual. The possibility of developing a genetic disease alone can create anxiety within some. The psychological impact from the results revealed is another issue that society is concerned about. A

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.

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).

genetic testing, everything has changed. She notes that clinicians now have the ability to diagnose, treat, and monitor a patient’s illnesses or disease progression in an entirely different manner. This is a far cry from the old medical model of responding to a disease (or defect) only after it appears, and then prescribing the recommended medication or intervention. These genetic medical advances sound miraculous and promising, but the ability to test, screen and provide early intervention does not come without many major ethical dilemmas.

When considering non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT), it is important to discuss ethical considerations. There are numerous features of genetic testing that may result in experiencing ethical issues such as the restrictions as to what NIPT is able to provide in specific situations when screening for foetal abnormalities, and what to do with that information resulting from the test. NIPT tests are safe and can be performed in the early stages of pregnancy. Due to the numerous features involved between ethics and the genetic testing, it may become evident that gaining informed consent and the decision-making process may become significantly more troublesome. Currently, NIPT is only available privately and not on the public health system which provides further ethical dilemmas regarding right to access healthcare. Other potential ethical problems surround selective abortion for minor abnormalities and the potential to test for adult onset disease and non-medical problems.

As time progresses mankind continues to explore inward to discover more about our species and further our knowledge on the genetic blueprint of a human being. The Human Genome Project did just that. Through one of the greatest projects in history, we have already been able to further our knowledge on humans and map out all of the human genes (genome), and there is much more to come. But with this new knowledge comes a plethora important ethical questions regarding if what we are doing is right. A lot of ethical issues are questioned in areas such as in vitro fertilization, genetic counseling, prenatal testing for developmental defects, abortion, prenatal surgery, and care of extremely premature or severely handicapped infants.

Although genetic testing can benefit society in numerous ways, such as the diagnosis of vulnerabilities to inherited diseases and ancestry verification, it also has the precarious capability to become a tool in selecting a more favorable genetic makeup of an individuals and ultimately cloning humans. Genetic testing will depreciate our quality of life and may result in discrimination, invasion of privacy, and harmful gene therapy.

“A genetic test can reveal that a person who is otherwise healthy has a higher risk at some point in the future of being unable to work, or requiring extensive medical care, or otherwise being more predisposed to an adverse state of health” (Ahwaz Chagani & Philippe Michaud). Such personal information regarding someone’s health can in turn affect their employment and insurance policies. Genetic testing has its advantages and disadvantages towards the insurance industry and its stakeholders. It greatly affects the insurance industry as they are not allowed to know about one’s genetic information as the Genetic Non-Discrimination Act prohibits that. The impact on stakeholders is that it is advantageous to policyholders and in turn disadvantageous to shareholders and brokers and agents.

The use of genetics and reproduction sciences has been an ongoing debate for years. Some argue that the use of genetics and reproduction sciences are unjust, unethical and inhumane. The other side of the debate argues that the use of such sciences is a “life saver”, that it will improve medical advancements, health, and society. Genetics and reproduction sciences are used for informing individuals about possible outcomes, abnormalities, and genes of current and future pregnancies. Genetic testing analyzes chromosomes, DNA, proteins, and genes to determine the presences of altering genes that cause disease or disorders. The sole purpose for using genetic testing is that is can confirm or rule out suspected genetic conditions. The test will help determine the probability of chance of developing or passing on the disorder.