Discussion – Genetic Discrimination

Discussion – Genetic Discrimination

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) defines genetic discrimination as “prejudice against those who have or are likely to develop an inherited disorder” (Weiss, 2014, p. 180). Scientific advancements in medicine have made it possible to determine the existence of certain gene mutations. This ability is expected to continue growing due to international investments in its research and development. It is possible to determine the characteristics as well as phenotypes of individuals and their disease propensity.

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) defines precision medicine as “an emerging approach for disease treatment and prevention that considers individual variability in genes, environment, and lifestyle for each person” (Chapman, Mehta, & Parent, 2020). This means that the medical or genetic tests that an individual undertakes can provide information regarding their biological makeup, current surroundings, and way of life. Individual gene defects can lead to numerous rare conditions. The increased accuracy and precision that scientists are applying in the identification of gene defects is gaining attention as a privacy issue that can be used against specific individuals, leading to discrimination (Weiss, 2014).

The scientific developments have provided employers and health care insurance companies with an opportunity to contain the genetic information of current or potential clients and employees. The National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) has established that individuals who have undergone genetic tests and received positive results are likely to miss out on job offers or insurance coverage. For health insurance companies, it reduces the risk associated with specific individuals who exhibit a higher likelihood for certain rare diseases due to genetic defects. Employers to health care insurance providers because they provide an avenue for employees’ access to coverage (Chapman, Mehta, & Parent, 2020). Therefore, if an individual is perceived as extremely risky based on the genetic test results, they are also likely to miss out on employment (American Civil Liberties Union, 2021).

There are specific reasons that prohibit access to genetic information for employment and health insurance. The genetic tests are not always accurate due to environmental influences (American Civil Liberties Union, 2021). They are also irrelevant to the individual’s current ability to perform a certain role. The uncertainty of genetic tests undermines their deterministic capabilities because they only provide probabilities. The employment candidates lack control over their genotypes. Their expectations based on the contract do not include elimination due to the results, even after consenting to the genetic tests. In addition, all individuals have varied genetic defects that may or may not materialize as rare conditions (Chapman, Mehta, & Parent, 2020).

The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) of 2008 was created to enable patients to access genetic information through tests in the absence of fear of discrimination based on the results. According to GINA, the consumers, patients, and researchers all consent to genetic tests and expect these results to be used for employment of health insurance coverage decisions. However, employers could argue that these results are necessary for specific decisions during hiring. GINA provides narrow exemptions for such situations.  However, as scientific technology continues to improve and the accuracy of the tests increases, it may be difficult to continue protecting citizens through GINA and the Affordable Care Act from discriminative use of the results (Chapman, Mehta, & Parent, 2020).

Based on the Rhonda Jones case, employers currently stand to lose more than employees for using genetic results in a discriminative manner. As depicted in the case, the employer, Fabricut, used family information from the candidate to predict the likelihood of carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS). The tests that were conducted later ruled out the probability as well as the information that the candidate provided. However, the employer had already withdrawn the job offer, which led to the payment of damages and full mandatory compliance with anti-discriminatory policies that are related to genetic information. This case confirms that the genetic defects of an individual do not determine their ability to perform certain job roles presently. Rhonda Jones had already worked as a temporary employee, which should have provided sufficient proof of her qualification for the permanent position (Weiss, 2014).

The Title II GINA law and employers seem to have some sort of agreement. The GINA (2008) amendment provided more power to the law. It protects employees from discrimination due to genetic test results. It also prohibits insurers who liaise with employers from denying an individual coverage or raising the premiums due to their exposure to certain conditions. These aspects enabled the law to fulfill its initial mandate, which was providing individuals with access to genetic tests and increasing their confidence for non-discriminative usage. This law holds employers and, by extension, insurance providers liable for any discriminative treatment that is based on an individual’s likelihood of developing certain rare conditions. However, the law does not consider third-party use, which can also be discriminative in nature. In the meantime, employers are more concerned with compliance to avoid penalties that arise from such practices (Weiss, 2014). Rhonda Jones’s case demonstrates that it is costlier to avoid compliance than to provide equal employment opportunities to all candidates. It is sensible to comply because these genetically related conditions do not develop immediately or limit an individual’s capability to perform significantly in most professions.

References

American Civil Liberties Union. (2021). Genetic Discrimination in the Workplace Factsheet. Retrieved from ACLU: https://www.aclu.org/other/genetic-discrimination-workplace-factsheet

Chapman, C. R., Mehta, K. S., & Parent, B. (2020). Genetic discrimination: emerging ethical challenges in the context of advancing technology. Journal of Law and the Biosciences, 7(1). doi:https://doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsz016

Weiss, J. W. (2014). Business Ethics: A Stakeholder and Issues Management Approach. Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

We’ll write everything from scratch

Overview:

 Organizations and businesses today are more complex and networked than in any previous historical period. Because of the numerous transactions of corporations, methods are required

Discussion – Genetic Discrimination

to understand an organization’s moral obligations and relationships to its constituencies.

Instructions:

 Choose one of the following three assignment options for your essay:

1. Research a corporation that has had to publicly manage a crisis in the past year. Locate research about the crisis. In a 2-3 page essay, summarize the crisis, analyze the company’s response to the crisis, and consider what the company should have done differently in its handling of the crisis. Support your analysis with content from Weiss and from at least two other relevant.
2. You have been hired as an advisor to a CEO and her small company, which has produced a healthcare product that has the potential to cause controversy with the media and other competitive stakeholders. You have been asked to present a 2-3 page report on methods the company can use to prevent and help plan for a potential crisis that may erupt. Use Chapter 3 from Weiss and at least two other sources you locate to present your recommendations in a plan to the
3. Read Case 8, Genetic Discrimination. Write an essay of 2-3 pages in which you consider this question: what is genetic discrimination, and why is it an issue? Research the outcome of Rhonda Jones’ case and how it has affected employers. Does your research indicate there is now a fair balance between the Title II GINA law and employers? Explain your answer. Use Weiss and at least two other sources you locate to support your

Requirements:

• A Word document, written in third person with no use of first-person “I.”
• 2-3 pages, excluding the Title and Reference
• APA format, including in-text citations for referenced
• Three resources cited, the textbook by Weiss and at least two additional