This article is connected to a discussion about whether it is ethical to run tests of questionable necessity on patients simply because they have the insurance to handle it (not the rarest of actions taken by many hospital administrators).
Additionally, how might this relate to the commercialization of genomics? At present we are limited by technology's ability to manipulate the human genome, but should it advance quickly, this may be the slippery slope that creates an ethical basis for in vitro commercialized manipulation of children.
Read the article here.
(Submitted by Chris Wagner)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The use of frivilous and unproven genetic testing puts an undo strain on insurace companies who's resources could be better allocated to patients with a real need. The system of health care in the united states is far from perfect. It is set up as a battle between hospital staff and insurance providers and the patients are caught in the cross fire. There is no balance of resources in correlation with need, there is only a balance of money that takes place with insurers raising premiums and hospitals ordering extra testing. The well being of the patient is secondary to the money being made. The reinforcement of this cycle of disregard for patient welfare is absolutely unethical.
ReplyDeleteThe commercialization and direct to consumer nature of recent genomic technology is a dangerous thing. It was briefly addressed in the article that those at home may not psychologically be able to handle the results of a genetic test. This is an issue that warrants much further discussion. Genetic home testing has been allowed under the guise that it only gives results, and no advice to go with it. The results of a genetic test can be dangerous when not properly explained, put into context, and presented with options. Imagine a patient recieving the a positive result for the BRCA1 gene alone at home. The hopelessness and sense of impending doom felt by the individual may be more than they can bear. It is unethical to put someone in a situation as emotionally dangerous as that.
First, I’d like to pick up on Throwera’s comments about the emotional and psychological impact of these tests on patients. I am skeptical of the study that mitigates concern about the impact of potential diseases on patients. This study would most likely need to be long-term, since the emotional effects on patients may not be seen for many years. Also, psychological impact is probably very difficult to assess. Other factors, such as how people go about their daily lives and plan for the future, may be affected; the psychological effects of finding out information early needs to be defined, because they may impact people differently.
ReplyDeleteThis brings me to my next point. The article addresses the viability of these commercial genetic tests. The question should really be about whether this kind of testing should even be allowed. If these markets go unregulated, as the article concludes, presumably, somewhere along the line there will be viable genetic tests. But do we want genetic tests to become standard. This question needs to be addressed before the technology advances. As I stated above, there are more than psychological effects, or psychological effects can encompass a wide range of issues, such as economic and social. If genetic testing becomes viable and readily-available, then it could have extremely negative consequences on society. Therefore, I suggest that the scientific community and the government regulate this industry before it becomes a staple in the economy.