This paper tackles the mishaps that are witnessed with the flow of information about the genetics of families that are likely to develop into disorders or give rise to children with greater affinity of ailments. An explication into insurance requirements of individuals with these genes is also discussed, with emphasis on the fact that the companies involved cannot use genetically instigated discrimination to issue different rates of premiums to members since they do not have the natural capacity to determine their genetic configurations. A brief analysis into the society’s take on individuals with these genes is also undertaken.
With the advent of technological innovations and medical developments, research has achieved greater things than earlier conceived by human capacity. The ability to determine existence of malignant cells or cells likely to lead to development of health complications, such as cancer or retarded growths in children has had a greater impact in society in general. Marie (2011) claims that while this technology has improved the livelihoods of many who have either adopted better feeding mechanisms or sought healthcare, it has brought with it the uncertainty and societal intolerance to those members who harbor the gene. This has therefore influenced the relationships in the society, through different constructions adopted by the various societal institutions. This paper tries to explicate the implications poised by this adaptation and the society’s and individuals’ role to each other.
Discussion
The modern society has become so sophisticated both in its approach of issues and the way it handles information pertaining to different things. The acquisition of the information about individuals with cells that are likely to lead to development of children with disorders or even lead to development of health complications as in the case of the (BRCA-1 or BRCA-2) which is associated with breast cancer is very important for individuals to seek better medical care. Marie (2011) argues that this is the earlier the information is acquired the better, because then the individual affected is able to seek better treatment before the defect generates more pressure or grows to a life threatening level. Different stakeholders and systems have however acquired this information to their advantage, and to some extent using the information at the disadvantage of the affected. The payment of insurance premiums to insurance covers has been one of the major areas which have been affected in the US. Marie (2011) adopts that although the US legislature debates whether discrimination is occurring in the insurability of the citizens, most people are forced to pay high premium rates depending on their health status. It is not legal requirement of one to undertake genetic testing for insurance covers to be taken (Brockett & Tankersley, 1997). But most insurance covers would prefer to use any tests which have been previously taken, which if not used or revealed may be considered as insurance fraud (Brockett & Tankersley, 1997). The level of confidentiality therefore emerges in the consideration of the genetic testing.
The question that one should ask here is who should have access to the report on genetic testing? It is ideally the role of the doctors and the society to uphold the confidentiality of the patient in their own privacy. The information gotten should therefore not spill to the external world. Experience in the release of information about the genetic configurations of patients has shown that most people are negatively affected by the release of information to the outer society. Johnson (2000) points out that most people will feel intimidated or will experience amplified feelings of sympathetic nature about their situation thus watering down their confidence and zeal to fight on. This would be disastrous for members who have been discovered to have the genes that lead to breast cancer. Instead of adopting the best procedures and mechanisms involved in ensuring proper and health living, the members will often withdraw and may fall into depression (Johnson, 2000). When this sets in, the probability of increasing the exacerbation of the problem increases. Therefore the level of confidentiality in the release of information concerning patients and individuals is pertinent in ensuring preventive mechanisms are undertaken.
Brockett & Tankersley (1997) assert that the insurance companies have on the other hand been using genetic results to determine the premiums of individuals. These insurances have adopted the historic method of determining the premiums of different people. For instance if one‘s family died of cancer or had a genetic defect that is likely to lead to a health complication, the patient or individual will normally remit higher rates of premiums as compared to those who do not have such history. However the problem this instigation is that the companies do not take into consideration the genetic testing of the person involved. Most of them act on assumption, something that is really a disadvantage to the members involved. This therefore leads to a lot of disadvantages on the individuals who feel discriminated and many not cope with the pressure of even sufficing the insurance cover. The information about the individuals’ situation should be dealt with the confidentiality that it deserves and should not be exposed to different organs in society for scrutiny. Ad much as the information may be helpful in averting losses especially in the insurance companies, the information should only be used by the ,individuals for medical procedures and assisting in developing better precautionary or preventive measures against the problem.
The individual on the other hand has a role to play in the society in as far their conditions are concerned. Field (2007) notes that, when the population well aware of their conditions they will take care of themselves better. Hence here the individuals’ role would be that of creating awareness of the situation or the cells that are likely to cause the genetic disorders. For instance the members involved can choose to create awareness by encouraging others to undergo tests and therefore adapt to better feeding habits or stop unhealthy relationships that would lead to disordered off springs. The members can choose not to indulge in reproductive behavior as this may lead to disabled or children with disorders, therefore creating more social problems in the long run.
The society should on the other hand realize that the individual who has been diagnosed with the disorder belongs to the society and is a sole member. Therefore to ensure societal cohesion will only be maintained if the members adopt a more socially cohesive affiliation for each member. For instance, the social institutions such as the family should offer support to members who have such cell that are likely to develop into health complications or lead to disorders. The society can support them by offering professional counseling sessions, assisting adapt to the best feeding habits to avoid the strike of the conditions and in healthy living, such as stop smoking or use of drugs (MacDonald & Williams, 2002).
Murry et al (2001) recommends that there should be laws that are adopted by countries to help in the control of the information flow. The information that is gotten concerning the genetic affiliation of individuals can sometimes become a sensitive issue in the community or family of origin. This can be an issue if the information is misinterpreted by the community. With the improved technology and media, the information leakage could be disastrous to the individuals or groups of people. This is because the genetic information transcends generations and may on a wide spectrum of people than normally imagined Murry et al (2001). Laws and policies that regulate and determine the level of use of the information should be advanced so as to prevent any eventualities that may arise due to misuse of the information.
The modern parent has also become sophisticated and in their consideration is the fact-finding nature of whether the partner they are willing to settle down with will have the potential of having healthy children or not (MacDonald & Williams, 2002). This has been greatly influenced by technological advancement where doctors are able to tell whether ones genes are healthy and therefore better placed in giving birth to a healthy offspring. The question of whether the parents should be subjected to tests to determine whether they are able to beget healthy kids is thus manacling in its nature. The parents should be left to make their own decisions. Just as Zhang (2004) argues, putting down procedures that should be followed in ensuring uniformity in terms of reproductions kill the self-autonomy that is natural to man. Every human being should be free to mingle and have what they consider as best to them. There should be no rule of medical testing when it comes to medical examinations or genetic experimentation. The observation of the genetic orientation of a partner should be one’s personal decision. Therefore whether one decides to get tested to determine their potential to give birth to healthy and children with healthy genetic configuration will strongly in the decision of the individuals. However as Elizabeth (2000) notes, it is healthy and medically advisable for families to embrace the advantage poised by the innovation and determine the nature of their genetic configurations and the likelihood to have healthy children. This will assist many parents in averting developing crisis later in life, were the children to develop genetically related high handed diseases or ailments.
The Canadian population continues to pay high premiums that are determined by the family history of the individual (Marie, 2011). Families that have the genetic disorders that are likely to lead to development of health complications are charged high premiums as compared to those who do not have such genes. This is a severe method of determining the premium rates. Murry et al. (2001) asserts that it is not within the control of the families to determine their genes, and therefore insurance covers should take cognizance to this fact. Members of these families should therefore not be subjected to different premium rates as compared to their counterparts who do not have such genes.
The question of genetic testing gas advanced by Murry et al. (2001) should not be of forceful nature. If a family is not willing to undertake a test, the insurance cover should not insist in their paying higher premium rates. In fact under the US legislation and most countries laws it is not permitted for the insurance covers to ask for genetic testing of its members (Zhang, 2004). Therefore it will be contravention of the; law to demand such a proposition. Therefore the question of members who refuse to undertake the testing to pay more is annulled by this development. The population should be allowed to adopt the best insurance cover that suits their tests and preferences. No extra charges or rates of premiums should be charged as this contravenes the law and goes outside the humanitarian considerations. Genetics is way beyond the control of man and therefore any action that is based on it, especially one which discriminates in this regard is unjustified and does not beat logic.
Conclusion
Determining the genetic information and genetic configuration of individuals and prediction the likelihood to develop complication or give rise to children with genetically associated disorders has achieved a lot in helping prevent such eventualities. Couples nowadays consider it worth seeking medical examination to determine the health risks and potentials of having healthy babies before resorting to start families. This has helped improve family relations and boosted the confidence in bringing up health families. However the problem of ethical information leak of members with faulty genes that may lead to problems has been an issue that members still grapple with. Misinformation and misinterpretation may lead to problems in th community as discussed in this essay. Therefore relevant policies and mechanisms need to be advanced and implemented to prevent such problems from occurring.
.
References
Brockett, P. L., & Tankersley, E. S. (1997). The genetics revolution, economics, ethics and insurance. Journal of Business Ethics, 16(15), 1661-1676. http://search.proquest.com/docview/198016472?accountid=45049
Elizabeth, H. S. (2000). Demographic implications of reproductive technologies. Population Research and Policy Review, 19(4), 301-315. http://search.proquest.com/docview/206284252?accountid=45049
Field, J., (2007). The Future of Disability in America.Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Disability in America; Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US) ; 2007.Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK11428/
Johnson, D. (2000). Ethics in the genetic age. The Futurist, 34(6), 13-14. http://search.proquest.com/docview/218580810?accountid=45049
MacDonald, C., & Williams-Jones, B. (2002). Ethics and genetics: Susceptibility testing in the workplace. Journal of Business Ethics, 35(3), 235-241. http://search.proquest.com/docview/197997018?accountid=45049
Marie, G., (2011).Heads they win; tails you lose--genetic testing and insuranceRetrieved on 2/03/2012 at 0110hrs from
http://www.geneforum.org/book/export/html/291
Murry, W. D., Wimbush, J. C., & Dalton, D. R. (2001). Genetic screening in the workplace: Legislative and ethical implications. Journal of Business Ethics, 29(4), 365-378. http://search.proquest.com/docview/197993590?accountid=45049
Zhang,S.,(2004)The Morality of Having Children with Disabilities.A Different Perspective on Happinness and Quality of Life.Retrieved from http://www.medicine.mcgill.ca/MJM/issues/v08n01/crossroads/zhang.pdf
