Introduction
With over 3000 different genes detected, it is important for science to use genetic tests in achieving different kinds of results. As much as the idea presents itself in social and ethical issues, the practice has assisted scientists in detecting numerous diseases that are genetically caused. In addition, an investigation into a person’s gene helps in preventing such diseases that may otherwise be caused genetically. Basically, scientists have established that being aware of ones genetic pattern appears to be one of the best ways that can be used to prevent different kinds of diseases from attacking a potential patient. On the other hand it can be used in curing certain diseases that are caused genetically. There are many advantages that can be got from the science of genetics. This includes; the awareness of some diagnostic information for mothers in pre-natal care and the proper handling of babies who have immediately been born. Other advantages include detesting symptoms of certain cancerous diseases and other types of diseases like Huntington’s disease. Genetic science can also be useful in forensic issues.
Due to the liability that may be caused through a breech of confidence in an individual, more people are shying away from exposing their genetic identity in public. As a matter of fact insurers and employers have not embraced the idea of ensuring that their employees undergo a scan. They may see it as an important source of information for employee productivity and effectiveness. The question has been whether information from genetic testing should be exposed or held back. Different sources of information have addressed this debate. Our main task is to analyze this debate, mainly from a scholarly perspective and also from the perspective of the popular press. We will then analyze the different languages that have been used from diverse sources in order to make a conclusion about the debate. I will finally give a personal judgment about the whole controversial issue while stating reasons why I lean towards any particular direction.
Yes: Information should be made available for use by Employers and Insures
Scholarly View
Clearly, this issue has heated up debate in the developed world. Insurance companies and other employers argue that providing the genetic status of an individual is just the same as providing much another health record. They have assumed that employees and the person who is assured provide this information with confidence. In asking for insurance cover, a range of health concerns are usually tackled. The introduction of genetics has gone a long way in sparking a heated debate as to why such companies are finding it necessary to introduce it to the list of information that the assured must provide. In the book “Genetic testing: scientific background and nondiscrimination legislation” Schoonmaker and Williams quote insurers who debate that currently in the United States, there are enough laws that are protecting the individual against any form of discrimination. This can be caused by providing to them or any other bodies this kind of information. The addition of new laws in preventing this will therefore cause unnecessary costs which may become more confusing to the legislature. The two continue to quote certain employers such as the vice president of a certain firm who debates that the genetic information will prevent the employees from becoming a potential threat to other workers. It is therefore necessary to provide this information (Schoonmaker & Williams, p. 2). Skipper and Kwon in “Risk management and Insurance” argue that it is necessary, in the perspective of employers to hire the right individuals. These are individuals who will take a minimal number of days in spending time outside the office when they are sick. The employers argue that this benefits both the management and their subordinates. They continue to say that employer-sponsored plans for pensions work better for people with proof of having certain diseases, and this is vividly done through the provision of information (such as are found in genetics) (Skipper & Kwon, p. 469). Another scholar who supports this, Foulkes, in his work, “Inherited susceptibility to cancer: clinical, predictive, and ethical”, states that in companies or factories which pose a potential environmental risk, genetic testing must be done in order to detect diseases (in workers) before they develop them. Multifactorial diseases are eradicated while employers get a better understanding as to which workers in these factories are more productive. Nevertheless, he takes a different turn in his argument and explains that the test should only be carried out by those companies that are satisfied by the relevant authorities. These companies have been spotted to demand a specialized workforce that needs certain scans. This is because some of the work that they engage in might pose potential threats to them, depending on their genetic inclination (Foulkes, p. 39).
Popular Press Views
Not only are professionals tied up in arguing towards this debate, but also writers in articles have contributed in sharing what they and the rest of the world feel about the whole debate. Weisbrot, a writer of “The Australian” newspaper is quoted saying that there is credibility in the acquisition of genetic information from their subordinates. He continues to argue that the employer receives some incentives knowing that the employees he is working with are ones that have reduced the chances of getting sick leaves, and even less payment for compensation. He, therefore, concludes that, if one is an employer, he might prefer gaining maximum information about his employees’ health status. It is preferable for them and advantageous for those who are already working as employees since if one has some proof that he/she has some kind of disease, shown evidently from a genetic scan result, he should await hefty amounts in terms of compensation. It is therefore considered good to their own advantage (Weisbrot, p. 1).
Another reason as Hobson, a blogger in the Wall Street Journal puts it, is that such measures taken by these people will help both the company and the employee reduce certain travel expenses. Due to the privatization of such information as the ones given in the gene analysis of some employees, many companies have had to initiate regular transportation costs for their employees to see certain specialists concerning their health issues. Such expensive trips could be highly reduced if the company would acquire certain documents like the genetic position of its employees. Cutting down on costs is one of the main agendas of employers as such trips may be quite costly to some companies (Hobson, p. 1).
No: Information should not be made available for use by Employers and Insures
Scholarly View
Many people, including scholars, have taken up the idea of having genetic tests done for employees in a negative way. A survey done in America in 2006 shows that almost 86% of the population is against the use of this method. The main reason is the possibility of discriminatory action by employers. Many countries like Austria, the Netherlands, Denmark, Spain and Germany have enacted laws against the practice of employers demanding genetic tests. Science and Technology Committee of Britain, in its research release “Genomic medicine: 2nd report of session 2008-09” highlighted a few key issues. These were the main reasons why they were against such practices. They concluded that for the employer to know one’s health, he should not rely on genetic information as a conclusive predictor. Research had found out that extensive inaccuracies had already been done before thereby giving divergent results on the same person. Being a relatively expensive practice, accuracy is necessary for minimizing medical costs. On the other hand, patients who have done these tests more than once have more often found different results from different genetic testing companies. The reliability of these tests is therefore brought into question, especially if these results are supposed to be used in determining whether a certain employee is eligible for a certain job, due to his/her health status (Science and Technology Committee of Britain, p. 304).
Another author, Betta, in writing “The moral, social, and commercial imperatives of Genetic Testing” has concluded that there exist no demonstrated benefits of giving certain information like the genetic test results to employers or insurers. On the other hand, she says that the ramifications of giving out this information are obvious. It is obvious that discriminatory measures are taking a toll. She tries to bring in the point that unless certain grounds allow for the release of genetic information, it would be unnecessary to do so. Only certain unique situations should permit the employer to ask for certain information concerning the health of their employees (Betta, p. 209). Other authors like Thompson and Chadwick have termed the move as a nightmare for any employee. In their work “Genetic Information: Acquisition, Access and Control” they give such information as large insurance companies wanting to get a hold of individual genetic results. They also say that many employees invest heavily in training their staff. If they would determine in advance whether or not a certain employee is fit enough to take up a certain role, such information could be cost-effective for many employers. Also, employers are on the lookout for employees who are less affected by such materials as toxins. Genetic tests would thus render some workers jobless, after citing the possibility of them having genetic incapability (Thompson and Chadwick, p. 110).
Goodman in “Money and Health: A study of America’s Social Values”, a Wall Street Journal extract describes how organizations have come together to protest towards the release of such information about an individual’s DNA and RNA. Insurers use this information to hike the number of charges that individuals and families ought to pay to be covered. Such situations are dimmed unethical by many scholars (Goodman, p. 344).
Popular Press View
Christopher from “the Singularity Hub” explains that the public can currently rest at ease because of laws and bodies that have been established to effectively deal with the possibility of employers discriminating against workers whose genetic test results have shown a deficiency in their health. Christopher quotes Acts like the non-discriminatory act (GINA) which was passed in 2008 that prohibits insurers or employers from looking down on employees in any way due to the results from genetic tests that they have undergone. Since laws and Acts are passed as a motion of public opinion, it is then obvious that the act has heightened enough public outcry. In the long run, this has ended up as a debate in parliament (De la Torre, 1). Goldgar in the “JAAPA” an American Physician Journal explains that it is relatively useless to insist on establishing genetic information, especially for insurers, since they have the patient’s consecutive health information. The difference is virtually unseen since in most cases whatever is reflected in one is usually in the other. He continues to argue that the debate on whether or not information should be retrieved is a community risk. It has been noted in the GINA act that there are some groups of people who are usually exempted from the law, most of them including the military, the veterans, high ranking officials and other individuals. The fear and worry are that this practice will be adopted by other similar civilian organizations as many more are turning to the principles held by the military in order to improve their companies.
The general feeling in the public established by some newspaper articles and journals on the internet is that there is a need for every possible measure to be undertaken in order to prevent the upsurge in demand for genetic results by employers and insurers. The general fear is that these results will lead to the sidelining of employees. In addition, potential employees who have negative results from their DNA and RNA tests may have a hard time acquiring positions that they are qualified in. As the world becomes more prone to effectiveness, employers and insurers would want the best from employees and clients respectively, making it an extra burden for the common citizen to live as per the status quo. Not to forget, the cost of doing such a test is high.
Analysis: Language Differences
It is clear that even if a large percentage of the population is tied up in thinking negatively about the importance of employers and insurers to acquire citizens’ genetic test results, the views that are echoed by the scholars sound more technically inclined than socially inclined. While looking at the proposers in this debate, it has been noted that the businessmen (who stand as the professionals in arguing for genetic acquisition) give a different feel in their argument.
The scholarly articles give more details. They go deeper than the normal feeling of human nature and the aspect of losing jobs for employees. These articles tackle the social and psychological challenges that a common human being is subjected to. That is if he decides to publicize his genetic results or not. A good example is the one that was given by the Vice-Chairman of a firm mentioned above. It will be necessary to psychologically prepare an employee to work under conditions, and if not so, relay to him the consequent reasons that may explain why he/she cannot participate in certain activities. Given such circumstances, it may be arguably necessary to relieve off an employee’s duties based on the findings from genetic tests.
On the other hand, popular press articles speak out the mind of the common man. The articles in the journals express the feelings of the citizen. They try to bring in this context a different point of argument. In most cases, the public is in an uproar about the loss of potential employment. It is not concerned about the technicalities and implications of releasing such information to the public as long as it does not affect their lives. The public is more concerned with any activity that may end up giving any form of discomfort. It will want these issues addressed even if the move seems to have some advantage over other people’s lives.
Nevertheless, is important to make a decision based on public opinion at a given time. Technology is created in order to assist human beings. Without the support of human beings, any form of technology is useless, since it is invented to assist the life of a human being to be more comfortable. In this case, there has been a discrepancy in the weight that the scholars have opposed compared to what the public has given. In essence, it has been noted that most of the public objects to the move of employers having access to genetic information from their employees. On the other hand, more professionals argue that it is important for employers and insurance companies to use this tool in order to gauge the productivity and potential of their subordinates.
With the debate boiling down to this, it is necessary to give the public the benefit of doubt. The debate must therefore be taken up by the people’s representatives; the legislature. The move that the US government has undertaken in introducing GINA is one of the results of such a debate. In essence, the scholar is therefore allowed to analyze the invention of the professional or the scientist (only to the point where it brings a certain effect to the public). In most cases, inventions are not the issue. It is how they are used that becomes a big problem. In this case, it is not viable to use such a helpful invention as genetic investigation of the human being in trying to investigate which particular individuals may become a liability to the company, yet probably, these people have shown impeccable performances in these same jobs. This will be like using technology to benefit a group of elites and leaving the rest of the public to suffer under the same technology.
Conclusion
In as much as the invention of the genetic test is helpful to human beings, it may be put to the wrong use of insurance companies and other companies end up asking for tests to be done on all their employees. From the different scholarly and public views, it still stands out as a major concern that the employers and the insurers will tend to exploit such an opportunity (as this one) in order to gain at the expense of the subordinates. The different views given by the professionals and the common public put more weight on negating the motion than supporting it. In my own opinion, certain boundary measures should be put in place, backed by certain legislation in order to protect the common man. The practice should be performed for certain professions that need the direct requirement of genetic tests. The political and professional advisors should be involved in coming up with such a list on the specific group of people. This technology will therefore not be misused.
Works Cited
- Betta, Michela. Conclusion. The Moral, Social, and Commercial imperatives of Genetic testing. New Mexico, USA: Springer, 2006. 209.
- De la Torre, Christopher. Genetic Testing: not as simple as A G C. Singularity Hub. 2010.
- Foulkes, William. Employment and Insurance: Inherent Susceptibility to Cancer: Clinical, predictive and Ethical. West Nyack, New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998. Print.
- Goodman, Harvey. Money and Health: A Study of American Social Values. 2009. Web.
- Hobson, Katherine. WSJ’s blog on health and the business of health.Wall Street Journal. 2010. Web.
- Schoonmaker, S.W., and Williams. Introduction. Genetic testing: scientific background and nondiscrimination legislation. 1103 W College St., Carbondale, Illinois, United States: Nova Publishers, 2006. 2
- Science and Technology Committee of Britain. Genomic Medicine: Evidence. “Genomic medicine: 2nd report of session 2008-09, vol 2.” 26 Rutland Square, London: The Stationery Office, 2009. 304.
- Skipper, Harold, D. and Kwon, W. Jean. Employers and Genetic Information. “Risk management and insurance”. St. Malden, Massachusetts: Wiley-Blackwell, 2007. 469
- Thompson, Alison, K, and Chadwick, Ruth, F. Old problem made worse. “Genetic information: acquisition, access, and control.” New Mexico, USA: Springer, 2005. 110.
- Weisbrot, David. “People are more than gene machines: genetic code.” The Australian. 2010.