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. The stress of genetic testing results, that may shorten your life or have no cure, will disrupt an individual physically and emotionally. Healthy people who carry the burden of having a life-threatening disease lack strong social support and coping skills. “The anxiety of living with the likelihood of one or more specific, chronic, debilitating disease create psychological burdens that outweigh the therapeutic potential of lifestyle changes or earlier treatment due to increased vigilance” (Kjono). Survivors guilt, or a mental condition experienced by those who have survived a catastrophic event that took the life of others’. For example, a brother or a sister who carry a gene alteration, like cancer, and one sibling has an increased potential for diagnosis, the other sibling will feel guilty for escaping the increased risk. Not only can a negative genetic testing result affect your well-being, but also your ability to obtain health and life insurance. “Genetic testing may permit a much more complete and refine... ... middle of paper ... ...ral Mission Of Health Insurance." Hastings Center Report 22.6 (1992): 12. Academic Search Complete. Web. 31 Mar. 2014. Janssens, Cecile. "How FDA and 23andMe Dance Around Evidence That Is Not There." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 27 Jan. 2014. Web. 22 Mar. 2014. Kjono, Jason. "Genetic Screening." Genetic Screening. NDSU, 1997. Web. 24 Mar. 2014. Leach, Mark. "LifeNews.com." LifeNews.com. LifeNews, 18 Nov. 2012. Web. 27 Mar. 2014. Murphy, Samantha. "Genetic Tests Debate: Is Too Much Info Bad for Your Health?"LiveScience. TechMedia Network, 19 Dec. 2010. Web. 24 Mar. 2014. Starr, Penny. "CNS News." CNS News. CNS, 13 Oct. 2008. Web. 26 Mar. 2014. "The Innocence Projectan." The Innocence Project - About Us: FAQs:How Many People Have Been Exonerated through DNA Testing? Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law at Yeshiva University, n.d. Web. 25 Mar. 2014.
The more we know about genetics and the building blocks of life the closer we get to being capable of cloning a human. The study of chromosomes and DNA strains has been going on for years. In 1990, the Unites States Government founded the Human Genome Project (HGP). This program was to research and study the estimated 80,000 human genes and determine the sequences of 3 billion DNA molecules. Knowing and being able to examine each sequence could change how humans respond to diseases, viruses, and toxins common to everyday life. With the technology of today the HGP expects to have a blueprint of all human DNA sequences by the spring of 2000. This accomplishment, even though not cloning, presents other new issues for individuals and society. For this reason the Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications (ELSI) was brought in to identify and address these issues. They operate to secure the individuals rights to those who contribute DNA samples for studies. The ELSI, being the biggest bioethics program, has to decide on important factors when an individual’s personal DNA is calculated. Such factors would include; who would have access to the information, who controls and protects the information and when to use it? Along with these concerns, the ESLI tries to prepare for the estimated impacts that genetic advances could be responsible for in the near future. The availability of such information is becoming to broad and one needs to be concerned where society is going with it.
Web. The Web. The Web. 19 Apr. 2014. The 'Standard' of the 'Standard'.
Web. The Web. The Web. 23 Apr. 2014. The 'Standard' of the 'Standard'.
Web. The Web. The Web. 2 Apr. 2014. The 'Standard' of the 'Standard'.
In Gattaca, the plot focuses on the ethics, the risks, and the emotional impact of genetic testing in the nearby future. The film was released in the 90s; yet in the present, the film does not give the impression of science fiction. Today, genetic testing is prevalent in many aspects of the scientific community. This paper will describe genetic testing, its purpose, diagnostic techniques that use genetic testing, relating Huntington’s disease to genetic testing, and the pros and cons of genetic testing.
...gery Medical Group. The history of health insurance in the united states. (2007). Retrieved from: http://www.neurosurgical.com/medical_ history_and_ethics/history/history_of_health_insurance.htm
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.
It is patients’ right to opt for genetic testing on their own DNA, although they are accepting a great risk by doing so. DNA is unique to each individual, present in each individual since conception, and influences who each individual is, so the information contained within it belongs to each patient, despite the risks. Such risks include DNA testing services providing results to potential employers or insurers, who can make decisions at the disadvantage of the patients if high disease probabilities are discovered. The results can also cause patients to react emotionally poorly and make negative changes to their lifestyles. Although risky, patients deserve the rights to take these risks if they choose to do so.
U.S. National Library of Medicine, 26 Sept. 2011. Web. The Web. The Web. 19 Nov. 2013.
Usage of genetic modification to pick and chose features and personality traits of embryos could conceivably occur in future times. Wealthy individuals could essentially purchase a baby with built-in genetic advantages (Simmons). Ethically, these seem immoral. Playing God and taking control over the natural way of life makes some understandably uneasy. Ultimately, religious and moral standpoints should play a role in the future of genetic engineering, but not control it. Genetic engineering’s advantages far outweigh the cost of a genetically formulated baby and
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.
Genetic testing has become very popular as technology has improved, and has opened many doors in the scientific community. Genetic testing first started in 1866 by a scientist known as, Gregor Mendel, when he published his work on pea plants. The rest was history after his eyes opening experiments on pea plants. However, like any other scientific discovery, it bought conflicts which caused major controversies and a large population disagreed with the concept of playing with the genetic codes of human beings. Playing God was the main argument that people argument that people had against genetics. genetic testing became one of the major conflicts conflicts to talk about, due to the fact that parents could now have the option of deciding if they
Scientists and the general population favor genetic engineering because of the effects it has for the future generation; the advanced technology has helped our society to freely perform any improvements. Genetic engineering is currently an effective yet dangerous way to make this statement tangible. Though it may sound easy and harmless to change one’s genetic code, the conflicts do not only involve the scientific possibilities but also the human morals and ethics. When the scientists first used mice to practice this experiment, they “improved learning and memory” but showed an “increased sensitivity to pain.” The experiment has proven that while the result are favorable, there is a low percentage of success rate. Therefore, scientists have concluded that the resources they currently own will not allow an approval from the society to continually code new genes. While coding a new set of genes for people may be a benefitting idea, some people oppose this idea.