Genetic testing is a process that involves testing someone’s genetic or chromosomal abnormalities. This involves checking for defects and deficiencies in someone’s genes and chromosomes that may lead to physical and or mental impairments. The testing can also be done to diagnose the genetic disorder, detecting future risks of contracting diseases as a result of genetic disorders, how these disorders respond to drugs, and detecting the extent of risks of disorders in the future. Genetic testing is of two basic types. These are diagnostic and predictive tests. The diagnostic test is performed where a patient shows symptoms of a certain disease to determine its cause. In this test generally, the consent of the patient is not required.
This is because the physician must be certain of the disease so that he or she can offer the correct curative measure. Predictive tests on the other hand are those tests done to a person who is found to be at a higher risk of developing a physical or mental disorder or impairment but of which no symptoms are seen. This test has brought a major ethical controversy regarding whether it should be done or not or whether it is good for someone to know or not that he or she has genetic characteristics that can develop into a genetic disorder. For this test to be done a patient consent is of paramount importance (Moore 1996).
Genetic testing as a diagnostic measure has increased in availability and accuracy over time as a result of advancements in technology and willingness by the people to take tests. This has in effect facilitated the advancement of diagnostic and curative medicine which in turn has resulted in almost accurate gene disorder treatment for various genetic impairments. This has increased hope among the people in reducing genetic disorders (Moore 2000).
Genetic testing has raised concern over matters relating to morals and ethical issues as it directly interferes with the role of nature. Christians adamantly condemn genetic testing arguing that it is against Christian teaching and the will of God. They condemn such practices that would interfere with embryo characteristics or anything to do with artificial insemination. Ethically, for predictive genetic testing to be done to anyone, he or she should have the ability to consent. This testing can be very helpful as it provides important information about future risks of genetic abnormalities. However to be tested or not solely lies on the decision of the individual after being carefully and well informed of the implications of such a test, both positive and negative consequences it can cause to him or herself and the family members (Tversky Kahneman 1981).
There is a strong ethical concern about genetic testing of unborn, new-born, children, and people with mental disabilities as they are not able to consent to tests. They are also not involved in decisions made as a result of the outcome of the tests. In these cases, the decision on whether to be tested or not lies with the parents. By doing so it is considered that parents will do so by putting their children’s interests first while making their decisions. However, they may do so with mixed reactions and come up with decisions that affect the child and the family negatively. They may opt to have one of the children tested for a late-onset disorder so that they can decide about the fate of their future children. By doing so the rights of the tested child are violated for the benefit of the other children.
A child found to have a genetic disorder may suffer low self-esteem during their growth and development. Consequently, in a family where one child is found to be having a genetic defect, he or she may be alienated by other siblings as disadvantaged without their knowledge that they are carriers. Parents of such affected children may become overprotective to that child to an extent that the child losses self-esteem and feels out of place while with other children. Consequently, the rest of the children who are unaffected by the disorders and come from a family of carriers may feel guilt that their siblings are suffering probably on their behalf. Testing for late-onset disorders in children should be delayed up to when they are mature enough to make the right and valid decisions (Tversky Kahneman 1981).
Genetic testing in some cases for on-set diseases in adults may provide mixed reactions in members of a family where one member tests positive for a genetic disorder. This is because the results suggest that one of the family members will develop the condition. Ethically, in a situation like this, the result of the tests should be made private and only disclosed to the owner of the test or any other member through the consent of the owner. In some states, the law permits disclosure of some tests to spouses and close family members or caretakers so that they can understand the patient well and give the necessary care commensurate with the illness especially in cases where the effect of the illness can be reduced through proper feeding and good hygiene of the affected person. For cases of the genetic test, there is a need for the law to protect and ban any an authorized revelation except to the patient and other few who are of concern to the patient. This is in effect to protect the patient from abuse of privacy rights and also to protect the interest of those who might be directly involved or concerned genetically by the results from being negatively affected (Malek, Geller, Sugarman 2000).
Genetic testing when being done on a patient’s consent offers him or her a better chance to take extraordinary measures to protect his or her health and enables them to live longer than they would under normal circumstances. Tests should only be taken for those genetic disorders for which treatment can be effectively done. Genetic tests for which sound treatment cannot be done in most cases result in anxiety and depression. In cases where generic disorder test must be carried out, the patient should first seek assistance from a specialized genetic counselor in discussing all positive and negative repercussions of being tested, this, in turn, should help the patient overcome stress and trauma should the results confirm the probability of genetic disorder (McCrary, Swanson, Perkins 1992).
There is an ethical principle that even the dead should be respected. If any test has to be carried out to determine their genetic makeup, the diseases they suffered from, or what caused their death or taking biological samples for further analysis should be done in consultation and consent of immediate family members. Generally, genetic testing is not prohibited by technological backwardness but by problems of lack of privacy, ineffective counseling, and discrimination by the public if a patient tests positive to disorders. Testing programs are sometimes carried out with hidden motives. Some laboratories that do carry out these tests are funded by companies that manufacturers the test kits. This is carried out in a view that cases of testing will increase which will intern increase the demand for their products and hence increase their sales regardless of whether these tests are beneficial to the patient or not (McCrary, Swanson, Perkins 1992).
Despite all these odds concerning unethical issues in genetic testing, there is a need to provide testing more ethically and humanely. This can be accomplished by educating physicians on specific issues of ethics in medical practice and continued ethical medical training for practicing doctors. The physicians should clearly understand the law that stipulates how genetic testing should be handled. This can be done with the help of bioethics who are trained experts in medical law (Williams, Winslade 1995).
Works cited
Williams, Winslade. Educating medical students about law and the legal system. 1995.
McCrary, Swanson, Perkins. Treatment decisions for terminally ill patients 1992.
Tversky Kahneman. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice 1981.
Malek, Geller, Sugarman. Talking about cases in bioethics 2000.
Moore. Bioethics programs’ future uncertain. 1996.
Silverberg. Survey of medical ethics in U.S. medical schools Journal of the American Osteopathic Association 2000.