Medical practices have always faced challenges ranging from lack of equipment and supplies to inadequate knowledge on how to deal with some community health issues. In the implementation of medical practice, various ethical problems arise sometimes, undermining the whole process and the common good. Socially, some cultural values do not conform to such medical procedures as genetic testing and even manipulation.
Additionally, some religious groups, such as Christians, believe that humans are perfect creations from God, and, therefore, any attempt to manipulate human structure is wrong. In his interview on the coronavirus vaccine, Dr. Francis Collins admitted that his experience as a scientist, atheist, and later as a Christian allowed him to understand science and faith. His experience in studying genetics, Bible, and directly involved in the human genome project enabled him to comprehend the ethical issues raised by society and Christians in general (Reed, 2020). Therefore, Dr. Francis’ views and that of his fellows are critical in analyzing the ethical issues for society and Christian healthcare professionals.
The evolving science surrounding the genetic composition of humans has presented ethical obligations among clinicians. Genetic information helps in revealing health conditions of fetuses and their sexual statuses. Clinicians can deal with any prevailing health conditions affecting the mother or child using genetic testing or screening to prevent future risks. However, on some occasions, such information has been misused, posing ethical issues socially. Most scholars, including Wauters and Van Hoyweghen (2016) regard DNA testing as “a coded probabilistic medical record,” which, if carelessly handled, may lead to discrimination among patients.
Information on individuals’ genetic contents, especially job seekers, may prevent them from obtaining their dream jobs, especially if they possess high-risk factors for some diseases. Additionally, further discriminations exist among employees who wish to obtain insurance covers. On some occasions, insurance companies have rejected workers due to the employees’ high health risks. Since genetic tests can help in determining an individual’s medical future, various companies can use such information to stigmatize people, leading to family discord and psychological distress.
Genetic studies have also revealed that some diseases are predominant among a group of people. For instance, sickle-cell anemia is one of the most dominant disorders among African American heritage, which make such information lead to potential racist behaviors. Preconception and prenatal genetic testing and screening present both opportunity and ethical challenges. This is because results obtained can be used to take precautionary measures against future health issues in patients. Genetic tests revealing prevalent disorders or chronic diseases, such as cancer in a family, can favor young siblings as the family can adopt earlier medication interventions.
However, the same information can be misused to terminate pregnancies, especially among expectant mothers who might have conceived accidentally (Wauters & Van Hoyweghen, 2016). On some occasions, parents and clinicians have used such knowledge to manipulate the fetus’s genetic structure, hindering natural reproduction and messing with God’s creation. Others have explored genetic engineering procedures to improve the genetic makeup to raise a better child.
For a Christian health professional, genomic screening that detects certain genetic defects in the fetus can pose ethical challenges, mostly when the mother prefers abortion. Among such Christians as Roman Catholics, abortion is immoral since life begins at conception, and therefore, ending a pregnancy is equal to murder (Williams & Wienroth, 2017). Similarly, DNA testing is ethically challenging in cases where genetic abnormality carriers can be encouraged to reproduce.
Ethical issues regarding the sanctity or purity of human life may be affected when genetic screening may recommend manipulating the gene pool. Christians believe that God created human beings in His image, which makes people perfect; hence, do not need improvements. Thus, enhancing the genetic makeup of embryos by eliminating undesired genes or adding desired ones is as a deliberate attempt to interfere with God’s creation.
Christians have also raised concerns about protection of humans, especially when an individual’s genetic information is shared with third parties. In such cases, unfair discrimination and stigma based on undesired genetic makeup have been metered against such individuals, undermining their dignity in the process. Denying people jobs and insurance covers based on high health risks is both immoral and discriminatory.
As such, Christians advocate for confidentiality and privacy even if it means not undergoing any genetic screening. Changing human reproductive cells or gene pool through positive or negative eugenics is as a way of interfering with individuals’ social liberty and responsibility; hence, organizations and individuals should accept other people as they were created (Williams & Wienroth, 2017). Through genetic alterations, safeguarding God’s creation has been undermined, posing some ethical concerns. For instance, Christians have criticized alterations leaning to developing biological weapons or for economic gain, as they consider these changes as means of exploiting forms of life as designed by God.
Consequently, any Christian health professional should be mindful of patients’ wellbeing and safeguard God’s creation. Genetic testing and interventions should help in alleviating humans from suffering and prevention and treatment of diseases, but not to destroy natural balance or degrade creation. Practitioners who wish to engage in DNA testing should embrace preservation of an individual’s confidentiality and privacy. Upon obtaining information on patients’ genetic constitution, it is imperative for gynecologists to safely keep such knowledge and only share it with the patients or a third party of their choice. This can prevent such eventualities as biased discrimination or stigmatization.
The principles of Christianity require individuals to be truthful and honest in everything they do. Therefore, healthcare providers who engage in genetic testing should honestly report findings to the person tested. Freedom of choice, being one of God’s values, should always remain elevated above all human motives at all times by allowing patients to decide whether to be tested genetically and how the results obtained can be used. People should observe peace and love, which are some if the key values Christians uphold by avoiding genetic manipulation as it can lead to the development of biological or warfare weapons. Similarly, organizations should protect human dignity at all costs by not engaging in genetically destructive practices but accepting individual qualities.
In conclusion, genetic testing has faced numerous ethical issues since it affects both science and faith. Socially, it has been viewed to limit human liberty and responsibilities as initially designed. Information on individuals’ test results, especially those with undesirable genetic constitutions, has been stigmatized and discriminated against, raising some ethical concerns. Christians believe that DNA testing is a crucial factor, which results in the abortion, especially when results show disorder elements. The decision to terminate a pregnancy is both immoral and equated to murder. For a Christian health professional to engage in DNA testing and uphold God’s values, information obtained should be used to prevent possible occurrences of diseases and to help in finding ways of treating them.
References
Reed, J. (2020). A long talk with Anthony Fauci’s boss about the pandemic, vaccines, and faith. Intelligencer. Web.
Wauters, A., & Van Hoyweghen, I. (2016). Global trends on fears and concerns of genetic discrimination: A systematic literature review. Journal of Human Genetics, 61(4), 275-282. Web.
Williams, R., & Wienroth, M. (2017). Social and ethical aspects of forensic genetics: A critical review. Forensic Science Review, 29(2), 145-169. Web.