1) Choose one recent (within last 2 years) news story about genetic or genomic technology. Describe the issue presented. From the perspective as an RN or APRN, describe the ethical, cultural, religious, legal, fiscal, and societal implication. 2) Describe two issues that undermine the rights of clients in genetic- and genomic-related decision making and action. Discuss a potential solution for each as well as your role in this issue as the patient advocate.
1) The recent news story I have chosen is about the controversial use of CRISPR gene editing technology in human embryos. The issue presented in this story is the ethical implications of using this technology to edit the human germline, potentially altering the genetic makeup of future generations.
From the perspective of an RN or APRN, there are several ethical considerations to be weighed. One important ethical concern is the potential for unintended consequences. The long-term effects of editing the human germline are unknown, and there is a strong possibility that unintended mutations or harmful genetic changes could occur. This raises questions about the potential risks to individuals and to society as a whole.
Another ethical consideration is the principle of non-maleficence, or the duty to do no harm. While CRISPR has the potential to cure genetic diseases and improve human health, there is also the potential for its misuse. The fear is that if gene editing becomes widely available, it could be used for non-medical purposes, such as enhancing desirable traits in children. This raises ethical concerns about eugenics and the potential for creating a society that values certain genetic traits over others.
The cultural and religious implications of gene editing are also noteworthy. Some religious and cultural groups have strong beliefs about the sanctity of life and the natural order of genetic inheritance. The use of CRISPR technology to alter human embryos goes against these beliefs and may be seen as playing God or interfering with the natural process of reproduction. These cultural and religious implications raise questions about the acceptability and permissibility of gene editing practices.
The legal implications of gene editing are also important to consider. Currently, there are limited regulations and guidelines governing the use of CRISPR technology in human embryos. This lack of legal framework raises questions about the potential for misuse and the need for oversight and regulation to ensure the responsible use of this technology.
Fiscally, the cost of gene editing technologies is another consideration. Currently, these technologies are expensive and not widely accessible. This raises questions about the potential for health disparities and unequal access to genetic interventions. If gene editing becomes more widespread, there may be implications for healthcare costs and the allocation of resources.
Lastly, there are societal implications to consider. The use of gene editing technology in human embryos has the potential to fundamentally change our understanding of what it means to be human. It raises questions about our values, ethics, and the potential for a future where genetic enhancements become the norm. Society as a whole will need to grapple with these implications and define the boundaries of acceptable genetic manipulation.
2) Two issues that undermine the rights of clients in genetic- and genomic-related decision making and action are lack of informed consent and unequal access to genetic testing and interventions.
Firstly, lack of informed consent is a critical issue. Many individuals may not fully understand the implications of genetic testing or the potential consequences of genetic interventions. It is essential that clients are provided with comprehensive and unbiased information about the risks, benefits, and alternatives to genetic testing and interventions. Healthcare providers must ensure that individuals have the capacity to fully understand this information and are able to make autonomous decisions about their genetic health.
One potential solution to address this issue is to implement robust informed consent processes. This could include providing individuals with written materials, engaging in thorough discussions about the risks and benefits of genetic testing, and offering genetic counseling services. In my role as a patient advocate, I would ensure that clients are provided with the necessary information and support to make autonomous decisions about their genetic health. I would advocate for individuals to have access to genetic counseling and other educational resources to ensure that they are fully informed before making any decisions.
Secondly, unequal access to genetic testing and interventions is another issue that undermines client rights. Currently, genetic testing and interventions are not equally accessible to all populations. This can perpetuate health disparities and limit the ability of certain individuals or communities to make informed decisions about their genetic health.
One potential solution to address this issue is to work towards increasing access to genetic testing and interventions for underserved populations. This could be achieved by advocating for policies that promote equitable access and funding for genetic services. In my role as a patient advocate, I would work to ensure that individuals from all backgrounds have equal opportunities to access genetic testing and interventions. This could involve collaborating with community organizations, policymakers, and healthcare systems to develop and implement strategies to address the barriers to access.