Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Arguments for and against genetic testing
Arguments for and against genetic testing
Arguments for and against genetic testing
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Arguments for and against genetic testing
Imagine for a moment that you, like every other employee in your office, are comfortable knowing you have a stable life insurance policy assuring you and your family to a quality life for years to come. Now, imagine that the company you work for suddenly takes away or changes your health insurance coverage because of a recent genetic screening test they conducted in the workplace. That coverage you once treasured is now being altered to afford you coverage for health issues only detected by the genetics test. If you want more coverage, you’ll have to ‘cough up’ the extra cash. While this dilemma is fictional, the reality of it is real and on the very near horizon. Genetic testing in the work place can be beneficial and/or harmful to the individuals at large, but looking at the deontological and utilitarian aspects of this new reality you may gain a better understanding of why we are heading where we are heading.
There are many benefits to the development and discovery of the human genome. Individuals are now able to determine what they are at risk for based on their genetic makeup before they even reach the age they would normally be considered ‘at risk.’ With that information people can start taking medications, vitamins, or supplements early, and change their daily habits or workout regimes to alter their projected life path, simultaneously creating a new one. If you judged a book by its cover the benefits of genetic testing would seem to outweigh the bad. However, the bad, concerns privacy issues and for a lot of people that is a big deal.
Anders Persson insists, “An intrusion into privacy is morally permissible if, and only if, a sufficient justification can be given that outweighs the individual’s claim to privacy” (2...
... middle of paper ...
...w Review, 96(4), 1497-1551. Retrieved February 13, 2011, from Research Library. (Document ID: 220510241).
Miller, Paul S. (2007). Genetic Testing and the Future of Disability Insurance: Thinking about Discrimination in the Genetic Age. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics: SYMPOSIUM: Genetic Testing and Disability Insurance, 35(2), 47-51. Retrieved February 13, 2011, from ProQuest Medical Library. (Document ID: 1334711181).
Persson, Anders J, & Sven Ove Hansson. (2003). Privacy at work ethical criteria. Journal of Business Ethics, 42(1), 59-70. Retrieved February 13, 2011, from ABI/INFORM Global. (Document ID: 455362041).
Sarathy, Ravi, & Christopher J Robertson. (2003). Strategic and ethical considerations in managing digital privacy. Journal of Business Ethics, 46(2), 111-126. Retrieved February 13, 2011, from ABI/INFORM Global. (Document ID: 405822051).
The word “privacy” has a different meaning in our society than it did in previous times. You can put on Privacy settings on Facebook, twitter, or any social media sights, however, nothing is truly personal and without others being able to view your information. You can get to know a person’s personal life simply by typing in their name in google. In the chronicle review, “Why Privacy Matters Even if You Have ‘Nothing to Hide,'" published on May 15th 2011, Professor Daniel J. Solove argues that the issue of privacy affects more than just individuals hiding a wrong. The nothing-to-hide argument pervades discussions about privacy. Solove starts talking about this argument right away in the article and discusses how the nothing-to-hide
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.
Teutch, S., & Tuckson, R. Department of Health & Human Services, (2008). U.S. system of oversight of genetic testing: A response to the charge of the secretary of health and human services. Retrieved from website: http://osp.od.nih.gov/sites/default/files/SACGHS_oversight_report.pdf
Andrew Guthrie Ferguson thinks that people should be able to choose what areas they want to be secure from “physical and sense-enhancing invasion.” Another scholar, Joel Reidenbuerg, believes that current views of privacy do not fit well with the current technology, instead surveillance is dependent on “the nature of the acts being surveilled.” One more scholar, Chris Slobogin, believes that “the justification for a search should be roughly proportional to the intrusiveness of the search” (Hartzog, 2015). Point is, legal issues surrounding government surveillance is a complex topic without a perfect all-encompassing solution; each situation is different and should be treated
First, let's consider the situations in which genetic testing would be beneficial to patients. Genetic testing for diseases that are preventable or treatable could allow individuals to alter their lifestyles so as to treat the disease or reduce their risk of developing the disease. For instance, the E2 version of the APOE gene, which is found on chromosome 19, has been linked to heart disease (Ridley, 1999). Individuals who have two copies of the E2 gene are particularly sensitive to high-fat and high-cholesterol diets. Therefore, a genetic test to determine whether a person has the high-risk version of the APOE gene could inform a person of future health risks, thereby allowing the person to change his diet to help prev...
Trottman, Melanie. "New Battles in the Workplace--Genetic Tests Create..." Wall Street Journal. 23 Jul. 2013: p. B.1. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 17 Mar. 2014.
The word “privacy” did not grow up with us throughout history, as it was already a cultural concept by our founding fathers. This term was later solidified in the nineteenth century, when the term “privacy” became a legal lexicon as Louis Brandeis (1890), former Supreme Court justice, wrote in a law review article, that, “privacy was the right to be let alone.” As previously mentioned in the introduction, the Supreme Court is the final authority on all issues between Privacy and Security. We started with the concept of our fore fathers that privacy was an agreed upon concept that became written into our legal vernacular. It is being proven that government access to individual information can intimidate the privacy that is at the very center of the association between the government and the population. The moral in...
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.
Most people concerned about the privacy implications of government surveillance aren’t arguing for no[sic] surveillance and absolute privacy. They’d be fine giving up some privacy as long as appropriate controls, limitations, oversight and accountability mechanisms were in place. ”(“5 Myths about Privacy”). The fight for privacy rights is by no means a recent conflict.
Privacy in the Workplace Introduction Technology has developed in leaps and bounds over the past few decades. The case is that the law always has difficulty keeping pace with new issues and technology and the few laws that are enacted are usually very general and obscure. The main topic of this paper is to address the effect of technology on privacy in the workplace. We have to have an understanding of privacy before trying to protect it. Based on the Gift of Fire, privacy has three pieces: freedom from intrusion, control of information about one's self, and freedom from surveillance.1 People's rights have always been protected by the constitution, such as the Fourth Amendment, which protects people from "unreasonable searches and seizures".
Stead, Bette Ann. Privacy and Rights In The Work Place. Houston: University of Houston, College of Business Administration, 1998.
Ultimately, however, surveillance is only a tool that can be used both ethically and unethically. Employee monitoring, consumer data collection, and government surveillance provides great benefits, including improving company efficiency, providing commercial and health values, and protecting the nation from threats. However, when considering the extent to which surveillance can be done, the rights of the people affected must be taken into account. Finding the right balance between these two views is the key to maximizing the benefits of everyone involved.
As technology as advanced, so has our society. We are able to accomplish many tasks much easier, faster, and in effective ways. However, if looked at the harmful impact it has had on the society, one can realize that these are severe and really negative. One of the main concerns is privacy rights. Many people want that their information and personal data be kept in secrecy, however with today’s technology, privacy is almost impossible. No matter how hard one tries, information being leaked through technological advancements have become more and more common. With personal information being leaked, one does not know exactly how the information will be used, which validates the statement that privacy rights have been diminishing and should be brought to concern. Many people do not realize that their information is being used by third-parties and to consumer companies. In conclusion, technology has had a significant effect on privacy
Perhaps the founder of Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg, said it best when he claimed that privacy is no longer a “social norm.” Virtually everyone has a smart phone and everyone has social media. We continue to disclose private information willingly and the private information we’re not disclosing willingly is being extracted from our accounts anyway. Technology certainly makes these things possible. However, there is an urgent need to make laws and regulations to protect against the stuff we’re not personally disclosing. It’s unsettling to think we are living in 1984 in the 21st century.
Foxman, E. R., & Kilcoyne, P. (n.d.). Information technology, marketing practice, and consumer privacy: ethical issues. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 12(1), 106-119.