Ethics As With Darwin's Theory Article Review

The utilitarian perspective focuses on the broad impacts of the actions, rather than just how the actions affect specific individuals (Andre & Velasquez, 2010). From the utilitarian perspective, genetic testing has the potential to do great harm to many, and to benefit many. The utilitarian arithmetic points out that the benefits to the companies in utilizing genetic testing is that profits increase. The argument can also be made that wealthier companies provide more jobs and wealthier insurance companies are better able to pay out to those who do receive payments. The counter to the former point is that this employment is theoretical -- not only may it not occur, but it may not occur in the United States. The counter to the latter is that insurance is largely price inelastic, so there is no improvement in coverage likely from handing more profits to insurance companies.

On the harm side, many workers could have their disability coverage limited. If the concept is expanded to the insurance industry, many would find themselves either unable to obtain insurance coverage or unable to afford it, because of their "deficient" genes. The implications of this are that many would suffer and some would die as the result of allowing gene testing to determine disability and insurance coverage levels. When doing the utilitarian arithmetic, some judgment needs to be made with respect to the value of the different outcomes. In this case, those values are relatively easy to determine. Suffering and death are worse outcomes than a reduction in profit. Almost all human societies place health and life as among the most important criteria by which the ethics of an action can be measured. Even societies that place high value on economic gain at least nominally recognize that economic gain does not trump life and liberty.

Conclusion

The lack of a clear categorical imperative means that the deontological perspective may not be able to fully resolve the issue.In general, the trend among different interpretations of categorical imperative both secular and religious is that gene testing for workplace decisions runs against our moral standards. Certainly, if the intent of Congress can be inferred through its treatment of other discrimination situations, the use of genetic testing to discriminate violates the morals of American society. The utilitarian response lacks any equivocation. There is very little ground on which to make a case that improving corporate profits at the expense of the health and lives of American citizens is a good moral choice.

Thus, the possibility that genetic testing could be used as a means to discriminate is worrisome. We have no control over our genes, meaning that any person can be subject to this form of discrimination. The laws surrounding this issue have yet to be determined, but that does not mean that the ethics of the situation are unknown. There is little case in favor of denying coverage or disability for people on the basis of their genetic makeup. When the law catches up with the science, the categorical imperative regarding this issue will be made clearer, but the general ethical guidelines are easy to determine even now.

Works Cited:

Andre, C. & Velasquez, M. (2010). Calculating consequences: The utilitarian approach to ethics. Markkula Center for Applied Ethics. Retrieved February 20, 2011 from http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/iie/v2n1/calculating.html

Cline, a. (2011). Deontology and ethics: What is deontology, deontological ethics? About.com. Retrieved February 20, 2011 from http://atheism.about.com/od/ethicalsystems/a/Deontological.htm

Miller, P. (2007). Genetic testing and the future of disability insurance: Thinking about discrimination in the genetic age. The Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics. Vol. 35 (2) 47-52.

Schafer, S. (2001). Railroad agrees to stop gene-testing workers. Washington Post. In possession of the author......