Ricardo Gonzalez
ID: L31156909
October 7, 2021
Liberty University
Master of Arts in Medical Sciences
MSCI 640-B01
Journal Entry: Future of Humanity
Introduction
After going through all the content from this week's material, I think I was most distraught with
the notion of genetic testing for employers. Chris MacDonald and Bryn Williams-Jones claim
that employers with access to genetic information can confer which individuals may be
susceptible to workplace toxins or environmental factors. That is the most preposterous notion I
have ever read; they are simply masquerading behind the idea that this particular individual will
be denied employment because of their genetic makeup. Nothing about genetics is simple;
susceptibility does not mean they will indeed become a risk or a liability; that is why this type of
testing should be forbidden. Drug testing is nothing like genetic testing because the employer is
just making sure the candidate is not on any illegal drugs before offering employment. If the
employer were to send conditional offers based on genetic results, I believe at least 1/3 of the
entire workforce would be disqualified. Let us take an example; an individual applies to be a
server for a restaurant, this employer then asks for a genetic test to be performed. The employer
gets the results for the genetic test indicting that this individual has a predisposition to diabetes
mellitus (DM). Armed with this information, the employer then realizes that the restaurant
environment will most likely enable this candidate to induce hyperglycemia. On these grounds,
the employer will deny employment to this person. You can see the obvious moral and ethical
dilemmas that arise from such considerations. DM can be managed, as can all other
environmental and occupational risk factors and hazards that any individual can encounter.
Therefore, the argument that genetic testing offers employers and employees benefits holds no
merit on the basis that it will unfairly deny employment to those that are more than qualified.
The only benefit that I see from genetic testing by employers is the off chance that a genetic
defect is known to the employee could help mitigate future ailments. In an excerpt by Epstein,
that was his only counterargument against employers' benefits of genetic testing. That is the only
reason this would be at least somewhat beneficial. There is no pragmatic approach to genetic
testing in the workplace or its use anywhere in healthcare but preemptive medicine. I would only
condone genetic testing for personal use in the hopes that it will help the individual navigate their
future health endeavors. There are six conditions that the text outlines should be met for ethically
permissible use of genetic testing. The last condition being policies in place that will ensure a
reasonable degree of job security. That is hogwash in the sense that conducting a test to reveal
potential susceptibilities to environmental factors would itself dimmish your "degree of job
security." It is evident that large disparities exist in healthcare already between ethnic groups. Let
us set aside genetic testing for a second; African Americans with non-localized colon cancer are
25% less likely to receive chemotherapy than their counterparts for many reasons, including
insurance and income.3 There are no current plans in place besides Obamacare to close this gap.
I think adding genetic testing to the slew of other barriers for low-income families will only drive
them further away from receiving the care they need. I concur with Rory O'Neil. Under no
circumstances is the prospective of genetic testing justifiable.1 He later makes an excellent
counterargument for the screening against workplace hazards by suggesting that the employer
should make the workplace safe and not just choose employees who can tolerate hazards.1. I
mentioned in our discussion board this week that genetic tests can not by no means predict who
will suffer from future disability or illness. That is why insurers should not use genetic testing as
a criterion for underwriting. It is not a new concept that the United States has suffered from
adequate insurance policies for individuals since before Obamacare. Before Obamacare, we saw
that insurance companies would use any information on someone's preexisting condition or
health status to deny them any coverage. I will say that although Obamacare does have its
drawbacks, just like any other policies in place, it does offer an individual this particular security
of not being denied insurance because of a particular preexisting condition. I solemnly believe
that we should not punish any individual born with a preexisting condition that is no fault of their
own. That is like denying a child insurance for insulin if born with diabetes mellitus to spare
healthcare costs. No system or society works perfectly in this sector, but jeopardizing individuals
with these conditions would be akin to leaving someone in the desert without water. 1
Thessalonians 5:12-16 We ask you, brothers, to respect those who labor among you and are over
you in the Lord and admonish you, and to esteem them very highly in love because of their work.
Be at peace among yourselves. Furthermore, we urge you, brothers, to admonish the idle,
encourage the fainthearted, help the weak, be patient with them all. See that no one repays
anyone evil for evil, but always seek to do good to one another and everyone. Rejoice always.
Insurance companies have no reason to seek information on a patient's genetics or genetic
conditions. There are arguments for the rising cost of healthcare, and genetic information could
help with better coverage. This is incorrect. The only problem that will arise from insurers with
genetic information would be alienating those with the highest-cost genetic condition, causing a
minority to form.
We discussed some great topics as a class this week on surrogacy, genetic testing, and sex
selection. I believe from most of our opinions that sex selection was a big ethical blunder. Sex
selection is on the line of designing babies. It is, therefore, unethical to determine a baby's
gender. Surrogacy was another topic of discussion that I had reservations about only when it
comes to AIDS. I believe that a bond should be kept between men and women so that donor
insemination would violate my beliefs. I always like to remind myself of Luke 1:37 For nothing
will be impossible with God." The topic regarding Neo-eugenics borders on former eugenics,
and we have witnessed the atrocities committed in the past with that concept in the zeitgeist at
the time. The role of neo-eugenics is meant to support genetic modification or genetic selection
of favorable traits. This same concept was used to murder six million people systemically. Let us
shy away from such practices and let nature runs its course as God intended.
Scientific record keeping is vital to the integrity and trust of the scientific community with the
general public. Experiments and the pursuit of knowledge build upon previous experiments done.
Therefore, a link can be made between good experimental results and research misconduct.
There are some laws in place to help circumvent the chance of research misconduct. Any
institution receiving public funding from agencies such as the National Institute of Health (NIH)
must maintain scientific records and laboratory logs.2 These policies are in place to preserve the
pursuant of fact and truth. As we continue to progress technologically as a society, understanding
and highlighting the importance of electronic record-keeping will allow us to lose any pertinent
data in the transition. I worked in a hospital and a pharmacy, and the amount of data stored and
collected electronically amounts to rooms and rooms of servers to hold such data. However,
cloud computing is a new advent that does offer backup security understanding how long and
how to store these electronic records is paramount. It is worth noting that any electronic record
keeping should implement a system that does a daily backup in case of catastrophic failure.2 All
the use of storage and data should have a procedure well defined on paper outlining the specific
processes that need to occur for storage and utilization of data.
We should be mindful of mandates from certain agencies and institutions when it comes to
electronic record keeping.
The future of humanity lies within us as a society to remain humble and empathetic to others
around us. We all may not agree with one another, but just dismiss someone for their opinions
and ideas is seldom the answer as we are all the children of God. Galatians 2:20 I have been
crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. Moreover, the life I
now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.
References
1.Wagner, V. (2008). Biomedical ethics. Greenhaven Press.
2.Macrina, F. L. (2014). Scientific integrity: text and cases in responsible conduct of research.
American society for microbiology.
3.Gorey KM, Haji-Jama S, Bartfay E, Luginaah IN, Wright FC, Kanjeekal SM. Lack of access to
chemotherapy for colon cancer: Multiplicative disadvantage of being extremely poor,
inadequately insured and african american. BMC health services research. 2014;14(1):133.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24655931. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-14-133.
4.Carroll, R. Bible-kjv. Oxford University Press, USA. 2008
