Moral Obligation
Throughout the chapter, Genetic Choices, the issue of moral obligations in regards to genetic information about potential disease and illness. Upon review, I find individuals to have a moral obligation to warn others if they have knowledge about their genetic predisposition in regards to disease and/ or illness.
The first case I will discuss is when an individual knows their family members are either at great risk or are certain to have a specific disease and/ or illness due to their diagnosis or genetic predisposition. In this scenario, the ill individual may argue a right to privacy and autonomy and not only demand medical personnel to not inform the family, but they too refuse to inform them. In regards to the ill individual, they have a moral obligation to inform those at risk based upon beneficence, in order to avoid placing harm onto others, as well as utility, where they must do what creates more good than harm. Although the individual will have their privacy breached, the harm coming from that is significantly less than what would be experienced by the others who are at risk if they go without knowing. Similar moral …show more content…
It has been argued that the physician may feel the patient cannot mentally withstand this news and that it will launch them into depression and other mental issues. The fault in this argument is that there is no accurate way to predict, without a doubt, whether an individual will have a mental issue from finding out this information. Based upon this, I find the physician to have a moral obligation in regards to beneficence, as telling them will do more good than harm, and utility as the doctor will be free from the repercussions they would face if they withheld the information and the patient will have the information they need in regards to their
The first case I will discuss is when an individual knows their family members are either at great risk or are certain to have a specific disease and/ or illness due to their diagnosis or genetic predisposition. In this scenario, the ill individual may argue a right to privacy and autonomy and not only demand medical personnel to not inform the family, but they too refuse to inform them. In regards to the ill individual, they have a moral obligation to inform those at risk based upon beneficence, in order to avoid placing harm onto others, as well as utility, where they must do what creates more good than harm. Although the individual will have their privacy breached, the harm coming from that is significantly less than what would be experienced by the others who are at risk if they go without knowing. Similar moral …show more content…
It has been argued that the physician may feel the patient cannot mentally withstand this news and that it will launch them into depression and other mental issues. The fault in this argument is that there is no accurate way to predict, without a doubt, whether an individual will have a mental issue from finding out this information. Based upon this, I find the physician to have a moral obligation in regards to beneficence, as telling them will do more good than harm, and utility as the doctor will be free from the repercussions they would face if they withheld the information and the patient will have the information they need in regards to their