We live in a world overflowing with technology. Specialized computers analyze everything from massive galaxies to tiny strands of DNA. Devices packed with information spill out knowledge. And humans are closer to knowing about both ourselves and the world around us than we have ever been before. How much of this information do we want to know, however? Controversy has sprung up between individuals, healthcare professionals, and society as a whole due to the extensive, often disturbing, data that genetic testing provides. Many emotional, social, and financial consequences can arise when a person discovers that he or she has an alarmingly high probability of developing a certain genetic disorder or disease in the near future.
Among these consequences are that the test results may cause their subjects to feel angry, depressed, anxious, or guilty if their chance of developing a certain disease is high. Tension is created within a family when the results show that other family members have the gene for that same disorder. In some cases, insurance companies and employers discriminate against individuals with health problems to avoid paying the costly medical bills. This prejudice tends to cause even lower self-esteem and more severe fear, despair, and resentment -- all because of a simple number that only shows probability (“Genetic Testing: Benefits, Costs, Risks, and Limitations of Genetic Testing”).
These major issues are avoidable, however. Since prevention is almost always better than cure, individual counseling should be provided for each person who is interested in having his or her DNA tested. Medical professionals should be required to reveal all the possible negative effects and make it clear that the results only display the likelihood of falling victim to those diseases. Nothing is definite; each individual still holds the ability to make lifestyle changes to fight against the odds and change that percentage. To further limit strong negative emotions caused by genetic screening, the approximate accuracy of the analysis should be presented to test subjects. This way, the subjects can better understand that even if a person tests positive for a certain harmful mutation, he or she may not actually develop that disorder. Knowledge is power, and many of today’s genetic testing-related problems would not have existed if the patients had been properly informed.
In addition to knowledge, if test subjects take more time to ponder over whether or not they truly desire to have their genes tested, then they will likely choose the option that benefits them more in the long run. According to researchers Colleen E. Giblin, Carey K. Morewedge, and Michael I. Norton, spontaneous decisions can lead to detrimental consequences when people are making weighty decisions (Ponser). Unless a person is in immediate danger of developing an inherited disease that might turn deadly if not treated early, he or she should take several weeks to discuss the idea with family members and consider all the pros and cons. While minor, day-to-day decisions can be made on the spot with no problem, choosing whether or not to get one’s genes mapped out is not an action to be taken lightly.
While knowledge and time are things that test subjects have some control over, the way that other people regard them is not. Those with a family history of genetic disorders are often treated differently because of the diseases they might develop. The federal Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act ruled it illegal for health insurers to raise rates or deny coverage because of someone's genetic code; however, this is by no means enough. It only applies to health insurance, not life, disability, or long-term-care (Schultz). In a recent survey, 22% of people with a known genetic condition in the family stated that health insurance coverage has been denied to them because of their genetic status (Sagredo). Citizens of any gender, race, and social standing can help to eliminate this unconstitutional practice by organizing demonstrations, signing petitions, and contacting government officials. The only reason why this mistreatment of civilians has been permitted is that the few protesters’ objections stand insignificant next to the many insurers’ demands. If each person who has been informed about this issue spreads the word, however, awareness will grow exponentially. Before long, our congressmen and congresswomen will have to sit down to revise that law. If a person learns through genetic testing that he or she will eventually develop a painful and incurable disease, it is the least an insurance company can do to protect him or her from having to undergo treatment without enough money to even pay the medical bills.
At the end of the day, genetic testing, while a wonderful technological advancement, drags along a large number of drawbacks. While many people do need to get themselves tested to diagnose diseases that must be treated at once and to change their lifestyles for the better, they must carefully consider the potentially nasty effects. It is also society’s responsibility to arm these people with information and ensure that they are not discriminated against if the results turn out to be fatal. Although it may take decades before most patients are completely comfortable with having their DNA analyzed, little by little, humans as a whole can come to understand that abnormal mutations in those strings of letters are not something to hate or avoid.
Works Cited
“Genetic Testing: Benefits, Costs, Risks, and Limitations of Genetic Testing.” Genetics Home Reference. U.S. National Library of Medicine, 23 Nov. 2015. Web. 26 Nov. 2015.
Ponser, Bruce. “For Many Decisions, Just Go With the Flow.” MIT Sloan Management Review. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2015. Web. 20 Nov. 2015.
Sagredo, Boris. “Genetic Screening: The Social Impact of Genetic Knowledge.” NDSU.edu. North Dakota State University. Web. 20 Nov. 2015.
Schultz, David. “It's Legal for Some Insurers to Discriminate Based on Genes.” NPR.org. National Public Radio, 2015. Web. 23 Nov. 2015.