Discuss the issue of genetic testing and screening. What are the benefits and the drawbacks of genetic testing? Specifically, what were they for Reiger?
Genetic screening or testing enables the detection of approximately 5000 diseases. It helps people to know whether they are in danger of a genetic disease or not. With this information, they can be able to make the right health care decisions. However, genetic screening or testing has negative impacts on individuals. For instance, it may lead to the discrimination of the individual in the workplace. David Reiger lost his job after he was diagnosed with Huntington disease. Huntington disease is a hereditary neurological disease. The Danville administration cited an increase in employees’ insurance premiums and safety issues as causes of Reiger’s dismissal (Wicks & Mead, 2008). From the case study, it is evident that those affected were discriminated against by the insurance institutions.
Assume it is technically legal for Danville to test Reiger without his consent. Did Danville have a right to do so? Why or why not?
Danville conducted a genetic test without Reiger’s consent. Human beings are unique from the other animals. They have the power to think and make informed decisions. Business ethics call for a two way respect between employers and employees. The company may be justified to conduct a genetic test on legal grounds, but lacks ethical approval from a human perspective. An employee should be treated with respect because he/she is of critical importance to an organization. This implies that it was appropriate for Danville to conduct the tests with Reiger’s consent. Employers are expected to demonstrate exemplary moral standards when dealing with employees’ health and personal issues. Treating a trusted employee with suspicion because his/her close relative suffered from a genetic disorder is not acceptable. Most employers conduct medical tests during and after employee recruitment. However, it is important to note that this should be done with full knowledge of the employee. The tests should be done with no ulterior motives. Therefore, it was wise for Danville to conduct tests with Reiger’s consent.
Assume it was illegal. How does that change your answer?
It was legally wrong and unacceptable to conduct genetic tests without Reiger’s consent. This means that Reiger could have taken legal action against Danville. Basically, the argument is premised on the fact that the practice is unacceptable under the concept of good business ethics. Besides the law, business ethics seek to guide businesses in making informed and universally acceptable decisions. If it was illegal, then the firm ought to have known the legal consequences of their actions.
Now, assume that Danville’s attorneys say the law is ambiguous, and that fighting a lawsuit would be expensive. How does that change your answer?
This sounds illegal. Even if a law has a different interpretation, people and organizations should know that ethics is part of the business practice. The claims by lawyers that a lawsuit is expensive indicate that the justification of the act was impossible. The law cannot be open to several interpretations to the extent that it impacts on the actions taken by employers. This means that even if the law was ambiguous, a common understanding could have been reached. Therefore, the act was unacceptable.
Discuss Reiger’s situation in light of (a) the 1974 Privacy Act, (b) The Heath Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, and (c) the 1990 Americans With Disabilities Act.
- The 1974 Privacy Act protects retrieval of records without the owner’s consent (Wicks & Mead, 2008). Any personal records should not be disclosed to other people without consent. Danville Airlines violated the Privacy Act by accessing Reiger’s medical records, after conducting a test without his knowledge. It was appropriate for Danville to seek Reiger’s consent before doing it. According to the Act, everyone is entitled to privacy. Access to his or her records amounts to an infringement of his or her personal privacy.
- The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 had no protection against discrimination by employers (Wicks & Mead, 2008). The Act also did not protect individuals from higher premium rates for those with genetic disorders (Wicks & Mead, 2008). In this regard, Reiger had limited options because he had no valid grounds to defend himself using the Act as a source of his individual rights. His employer (Danville) was free to do whatever he wished because the insurance firms had increased the premium rates.
- The 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act. The Disability Act protected Reiger from the possible dismissal. According to the case study, it was not acceptable for employers to dismiss employees on grounds of disability. Wicks & Mead (2008) argue that it was the responsibility of an employer to provide his/her disabled employees with aiding tools or covers. Therefore, Danville was supposed to accommodate Reiger by help him through his condition.
Does the knowledge that Reiger lost his father to Huntington’s disease and that he has a 90-percent chance of developing the same condition make a difference in your decision?
No. It doesn’t make any difference in this paper’s position. Danville violated fundamental moral principles. The fact that Reiger’s father died of Huntington disease, Danville had no valid reasons for testing him without his consent. Although he was at risk of developing the disorder, due process had to be followed to conduct the genetic testing.
What recommendations should Julie Taylor make?
Based on this paper’s argument, Julie Taylor should recommend the retention of David Reiger as an employee at Danville. Danville should have an elaborate plan to protect employees with genetic disorders. The Airline should also apologize to Reiger for intruding into his privacy and pay for the mistake in monetary terms or any other available compensation. Reiger should also accept to step down, if in any case, the symptoms of the disease begin to appear.
Reference
Wicks, A., & Mead, J. (2008). Danville Airlines. Web.