The problem with screening for Huntington's disease is lies in revealing a child with HD. By doing so, you are also revealing that one of the parents must have HD. Is this a violation of privacy of the parent? It has become a conflict between the rights of a parent and the rights of a child. Should the parents have the ability to screen their child for HD if they know it's in the family history? Or should the child be able to make the decision when she or he's 18? Even if they were allowed to, however, they would know they had a chance of having HD because their parents would be revealed as having HD in the meantime. Should that make a difference? Should the parents have the ability to keep the test results from the child? If there is a couple, and the mother wants her fetus tested for HD, but the father doesn't want to know if he has HD? Should the mother be able to make the decision? Or should the father's argument prevail? The questions of ethics arises. Here are some arguments in FAVOR or screening an infant for HD.
-By screening infants for HD, you are giving the parents the chance to prepare themselves or their child for lives with HD.
-By screening infants for HD, you are preventing further cases of HD from spreading. If each child grows up knowing they have HD, they will be able to make a fully formed decision about having children. As most people have children before their 30s, and they may not know their parents medical history, they can decide whether or not they want to subject their children to the possible dangers.
-One man was convinced he had HD and decide not to have children. He took up dangerous sports, like skydiving and cliff-jumping. If he had been screened for the disease, he would have found that he didn't have the mutation. (6)
-By screening a child for HD, you are giving the family the chance to be ready to treat early symptoms. Not to mention that the family may be able to participate in drug trials or experimental medicine.
-By not informing a child about their HD, they will face huge, traumatic, and life-changing events when they do find out. Any long-term dreams they have will be hopeless. If they grow up knowing they have HD, then they will be prepared to deal with HD as an adult.
-If we start screening all infants for HD, the problem soon won't be a problem. If anyone at-risk knew they had HD, then testing the infant wouldn't be a problem because the parent would already know if the had HD or not. However, this would not solve the problem of whether or not it is important to wait until the child turns 18.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This is really good. You have a lot of information, and definitely looks good for having a debate about. In this infomation i can definitely tell that you are Pro for infants being screened for Huntington's disease.
ReplyDeleteHonestly, I think you have too much information. An overview, pros, and cons. There's a lot of info. I mean, I'm not saying it's a bad thing that you went above and beyond, but you did a lot more than you had to to get a good grade. I guess that shouldn't be a bad thing, but you really don't need this much. Anyways, you did a really good job on this. Best one I've seen yet by a long shot.
ReplyDelete