Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Arguments for genetic testing
Arguments for genetic testing
Pros and cons of genetic testing
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Arguments for genetic testing
Genetic testing negatively affects MILLIONS of lives. Those test results may trigger awful emotions. Testing may cost too much for the average person. Also, these screenings are not full body reviews. Considering these genetic testing should be prohibited by agencies offering the tests for everyone’s life. The results of a genetic test may trigger some horrible emotions. Finding out that a gene mutation is absent may cause them to feel a sense of relief. So far, finding out that you have a genetic disorder results in displeasure in your body. May feel the urge of crying or “playing it safe.” Not doing what they want, but worrying about what could happen. Depression, people refuse to live with their disorder, so they choose to “opt out of life.” Considering this just shows the emotions sprung by receiving a dreadful test result. …show more content…
A vast reason that genetic test are not done is as a result of the cost. These tests can cost from hundreds to thousands of dollars. Some genetic test cost up to 2,000$ as well, that’s 4% of the average income of 50,000$. That is a fat chunk of money just to have something that might just cause depression. Most people cannot even afford to identify if they have a genetic disorder. Genetic testing does not look for every disease in the universe. Tests are targeted to look for a specific disease or disorder. When the science team finds a disorder or disease, they do not continue to look. Scientists will prohibit the rest of the screening unless paid more money. “When someone walks through my door, i’m not going to screen them for everything on the planet”-Aatre. Testing is relatively pointless, after wasting all of that money as though the scientist does not look through the genes thoroughly to look for other
The public should be aware of what could happen if this kind of information became public knowledge, and of the opportunities that the knowledge brings. There is no doubt that the information from genetic analysis is going to help a lot of people with all sorts of problems live longer and healthier lives. The only problem is that we have to keep the information in the hands of those who need it, and out of the hands of those who would use the information to profit or discriminate.
Advantages of genetic testing may be helpful in determining whether or not you have a disease or are proba...
In The Case Against Perfection, Sandel warns us of the dangers that genetic engineering, steroids, and hormones poses to society and the natural order. According to Sandel, this type of control, especially in non-medical settings, violates a respect for life that should be ingrained in all of us. Life is something difficult to predict, something that shouldn’t bend to our every single will and desire. Genetic engineering, and the like, presents an egregious violation of this respect. According to Sandel, this violation serves only to reverse the human march of progress. Sandel weaves a well-balanced argument in his book. The issue of eugenic technology is most definitely not black or white. According to him, the aspects of modification can be applied selectively, so long as it doesn’t violate the respect for life society should hold closely.
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.
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).
Due to the human genome project and other genetic research, tests for mutation which cause diseases have been developed. The list of these illnesses include several types of cancer. Doctors have estimated that as many as 3,000 diseases are due to mutations in the genome. These diseases include several types of colon cancer in which three different genetic tests have been already developed. Debates have arisen on whether these tests should be used regularly or not. Questions including the patients= rights of privacy and the possibility of loss of health or life insurance have been argued over in both the media and political arena.
Genetic testing involves examining an individual’s DNA and identifying abnormalities within the chemical makeup of specific structures. It, essentially, maps the person’s genome and can be interpreted to predict future issues. By analyzing the chromosome, genes, and even certain proteins, physicians and researchers can find changes that lead to inheritable disorders. These changes can lead to possible diagnosis or cure for the disorder in question. In most cases, genetic testing is used to determine the probability that an individual will develop a certain disorder. It is not used to specifically diagnose a disorder, as there are no techniques that are 100% accurate. Genetic testing techniques do give good evidence to confirm a physician’s findings, but it is not the first act a physician takes to diagnose a disorder. It can narrow a search or rule out a specific disorder very confidently, but making a diagnosis based solely on genetic testing is not an action that a qualified medical professional would consider.
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 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.
Prenatal genetic testing has become one of the largest and most influencial advances in clinical genetics today. "Of the over 4000 genetic traits which have been distinguished to date, more than 300 are identifiable via prenatal genetic testing" (Morris, 1993). Every year, thousands of couples are subjecting their lives to the results of prenatal tests. For some, the information may be a sigh of relief, for others a tear of terror. The psychological effects following a prenatal test can be devastating, leaving the woman with a decision which will affect the rest of her life.
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...
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.
For as long as mankind has walked the Earth, there have always been things standing in its way; things scientists have taken centuries to try and understand. Finding the key to why someone has a pre-disposition to cancer, Alzheimer’s, heart problems, or even skin conditions like psoriasis, lays within their genetic make-up. Many remain reserved on the subject and insist that the risk of genetic testing isn’t worth the reward, though there is much evidence to the contrary. The debate on the benefits of genetic research and what they can do to help mankind has been argued with the help of extensive scientific testing, anonymous surveys, and rulings from our own Federal Government.
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
Genetic testing can help people determine why they get cancer or other diseases. Genetic testing is recommended to people who have a family history of a genetic disease, have children who are born with genetic defects, and have gone through more than one miscarriage in the past. Though these te...