Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Ethical issues of dna profiles
Morals and ethics of dna profiling
Ethical consideration in dna profiling
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Ethical issues of dna profiles
As defined by Merriam Webster, safety is the condition of being protected from danger, risk, or injury. The desire for safety, and the lack of it are powerful motivators. This fear is currently being manipulated to attempt to convince the public that a national DNA database should be instituted. The attempt to institute this database is unethical, impractical, and fiscally irresponsible. Any attempt to enact a mandatory DNA database is illegal, as the current precedent for the forced collection of DNA clearly states that either consent, or a warrant is required. The Fourth amendment states “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.” …show more content…
Though people may believe that someone simply knowing their genetic code would not be that detrimental, there are many applications of the information contained within your cells. One major example of such possible abuse would be insurance companies. If they obtain access to that information, whether through legal or illegal means, they can begin to deny coverage to people based on preexisting conditions that they have not even developed. Perfectly healthy people with a predisposition to developing cancer would likely be denied coverage due to the potential risk to the insurance company. Information such as this never stays protected for long, because there is always someone who wants to use it for personal gain. …show more content…
By forcing this system upon us we treat upstanding citizens no different than criminals. This system assumes guilt on the part of the people before the crime of which they are guilty has even been committed. We say that our justices system is based on the principle that you remain innocent until proven otherwise, so how could we allow a system such as this to remove our right to be treated innocently until we have been proven otherwise. Not only is it unconstitutional and unsecure, it is also impractical. It’s goal is to solve more crime using DNA evidence. According to a report released by England’s parliament, only 0.3 percent of crimes are actually solved using DNA evidence.With such low rates of effectiveness and such a high cost, not only fiscally but in regards to our liberties and securities as well, there is no reason this futile and ultimately detrimental system upon
It is also thought that DNA fingerprinting and databases lead to racial disparities within the criminal justice system, since the majority of incarcerated persons are of African American or Latino decent (Chow-White). The ethical argument is that while DNA sample collections are legal and undoubtedly helpful in obtaining convictions, it on the other hand supports and in some ways promote racial disparities (Chow- White). At the urging of multiple anti-watchdog groups, legislation for changes in polices and institutional practices must be implemented to address these disparities and protect individuals within these demographics. The suggestion of encrypted digital codes that limit the information revealed by these databases to individuals are also being evaluated
I personally feel that this is a much more reliable and accurate than relying on the testimony of witnesses. I believe through the use of science we as a society can now make sure that the guilty are caught and punished while the innocent are protected from wrongful prosecution. However the eyewitness should not be completely left out of the case against the possible offender. After it is determined through scientific evidence, in this case DNA, that the physically involved in the crime then witnesses can be brought in to give testimony that the offender was present at the crime scene or the victim can be sure that the accused was truly the one involved in the actual crime.
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.
Kolata, Gina. "DNA Tests Provide Key to Cell Doors for Some Wrongly Convicted Inmates." The New York Times
First and foremost is the Michael Mosley case. Michael Mosley was convicted murdering a couple ten years ago (Wurtman, 2011). Two other men were cleared when Mosley’s DNA was found at the scene of the murder (Crowe II, 2012). Also, there was a palm print on the wall and further DNA on the sheets in the bedroom (Wurtman, 2011). In contrast to all the evidence, Mosley’s attorney offered an alternative reason and painted a picture of different events to explain Mosley’s DNA’s presence (Wurtman, 2011). However, the jury didn’t buy the defense’s story, and Michael Mosley’s conviction led to a call for the DNA database to be worked on with the most interesting fact being that Michael Mosley had no DNA in the system until seven years later than the crime (Crowe II, 2012).
seem inaccurate. More than half the states have a mandatory DNA testing of all people
One of the most necessary uses of genetic engineering is tackling diseases. As listed above, some of the deadliest diseases in the world that have yet to be conquered could ultimately be wiped out by the use of genetic engineering. Because there are a great deal of genetic mutations people suffer from it is impractical that we will ever be able to get rid of them unless we involve genetic engineering in future generations (pros and cons of genetic eng). The negative aspect to this is the possible chain reaction that can occur from gene alteration. While altering a gene to do one thing, like cure a disease, there is no way of knowing if a different reaction will occur at the cellular or genetic level because of it; causing another problem, possibly worse than the disease they started off with (5 pros and cons of gen. eng.). This technology has such a wide range of unknown, it is simply not safe for society to be condoning to. As well as safety concerns, this can also cause emotional trauma to people putting their hopes into genetic engineering curing their loved ones, when there is a possibility it could result in more damage in the
The state should take the responsibility of coming up with laws and regulations on access and use of gene information. The information should be under the custody of the federal government and it should be coded and encrypted for security reasons. Any one in need of this information should approach the federal agency responsible.
The system has gone as deep as to making it so that even if a person has not committed a crime, but is being charged for it they can agree to a plea bargain, which makes it so even though the person did not do it the system is going to have them convicted of it anyway (Quigley 1). “As one young man told me ‘who wouldn’t rather do three years for a crime they didn’t commit than risk twenty-five years for a crime they didn’t do?” (Quigley 2). The criminal justice system has scared the majority of the population into believing that even though they did not commit a crime, they are convicted of it.
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.
Is our justice system fair to all? Although the answer to this question is an opinion, there are pieces of evidence and commentary to defend this argument. The process of the legal system itself is all an opinion because in the end, the only person whose judgments matter is the judge himself. Over time, the wrong people have been arrested for the wrong things. Living in the United States, a country where crimes are committed constantly; we count on this system to make the right decisions. It is important that each case is treated equally when carrying out justice to keep the United States a safe place, to form a nation with good education, and to teach people from judging right from wrong. However, sometimes rights are taken from the wrong people. Our legal system is creating a dangerous path for African Americans in our country because of its’ highest per capita incarceration rate, its’ favoritism towards those in power, and its failure to carry out justice to protect people from the dangerous acts of those who are defined as criminals.
Singer, Julie A. "The Impact Of Dna And Other Technology On The Criminal Justice System: Improvements And Complications."Albany Law Journal Of Science & Technology 17.(2007): 87. LexisNexis Academic: Law Reviews. Web. 10 Mar. 2014.
As we approach the 21st century, we as a society are increasingly bombarded with technical advances. One such area of advancement is the research involved with the Human Genome Mapping Project (HGMP). HGMP is a multi-billion dollar world wide research collaboration interested in sequencing the entire human genome. Started on October 1, 1990, with a group of over 350 labs, and expected to finish within the next 5 to 7 years, the Human Genome Mapping Project has given rise to many important advancements and many discoveries about the genetic make-up of humans (Bylinsky, 1994). With these advances come many ethical questions and concerns. The ability to screen an individual for specific disease will, in the future, play a major role in each of our lives. Genetic screening is defined in Genethics, by Suzuki and Knudson (1990), as "the examination of the genetic constitution of an individual - whether a fetus, a young child or a mature adult - in search of clues to the likelihood that this person will develop or transmit a heritable defect or disease."
I could cite several examples where I thought a judge’s or jury’s ruling was not fair, but I won’t because frankly, we’ve all seen those. I actually believe in our legal system, and I believe in justice. I believe in justice as an ideal that we strive for, and that is what it means to me. The legal system, when looked at closer, is not justice but instead judgment. You can be punished when found guilty, in a number of ways, but who knows if they’re “fair” punishments, it’s all a matter of opinion.
We used a lot of special terms while researching, and I will define them for you here: Safety is the condition of being protected from or unlikely to cause danger, risk, or injury. Its synonyms are welfare, protection, and security. Security is the state of being free from danger or threat. Its synonyms are safety, freedom from danger, security. Public policy is the principles, often unwritten, on which social laws are based (Rules and laws in our society). Cognitive means of or relating to cognition. Learning is the acquisition of knowledge or skills through experience, study, or by being taught. Reflection is serious thought or consideration. School safety means the safety of school settings, such as the incidence of harassment, bullying, violence, and substance use, as supported by relevant rese...