Date Written: August 9th, 2015
For: GCU - HRM 635
Danville Airlines: Ethics and Issues with
Genetic Testing by Employers
Within the last few decades, the
strengths and weaknesses of genetic testing have begun to become apparent
within the biological world. Genetic
testing can save lives and determine paternity.
It can also lead to concerns over health and premature depression over
impending issues. In the case study of Danville Airlines as per the testing of
David Reiger’s blood, the concerns over ethics and legality come up as
concerns. How far is a Human Resources
director allowed to go in order to protect the company? Is it legal, or even ethical, for an employer
to test their employee’s blood without consent and to make determinations off
of that test?
The
Issues and Benefits of Genetic Testing
With the
development of the Human Genome Project, genetic testing became both a blessing
and a curse for people with family histories of disease. According to Curley
and Caperna, the goals of the project include creating a blueprint of the human
D.N.A. and “these
blueprints are then compared to maps of individuals with genetic disorders in
order to track down components of a genetic disorder” (2003, p. 25). The diligence put into this project was meant
to help better understand the species that is human, but, like all good
intentions, they are sometimes turned to serve the needs of others.
Giving
an employer access to a person’s D.N.A. is a challenging prospect, especially
without asking that person’s consent previously. In the case of David Reiger at Danville
Airlines, the results of the Human Genome Project worked against him and gave
his employer possible grounds to dismiss him.
At the same time, the actions of Julie Taylor, gave him advanced warning
as to his condition and time to make arrangements for the future of
Huntington’s disease.
In
either case, alerting someone of their exact health decisions without their
consent takes away the element of choice as to their own life. By telling Reiger he carries the gene for Huntington
’s disease, he no longer has the ability to decided he if wants to know or
not. As the case study quoted Reiger’s
wife saying, “giving him the test without his consent is inexcusable” (Mead
& Wicks, 2004, p. 7). Now, Reiger
has to live with the knowledge that one day he will have to go through the same
pain and dementia his father did and then enters into a whole new level of
psychological pressure.
Legal versus Illegal
Actions
If these actions were considered
legal, from the employer’s legal stand point, I would say yes, they had the
right to do so. However, from the
ethical standpoint, my answer would be a resounding no. Testing an employee for medical issues
without prior consent is a violation of their personal privacy and rights. It takes away their decisions as to their own
healthcare and relieves them of their right to choose. Danville Airline’s
Lawyer, nonetheless, would be able to support the actions and win the case as
to the company’s right to protect itself and its customers when symptoms begin
to show.
On
the other hand, assuming these actions were illegal, the ethics as stated
previously would still be in play, but the counsel would not be able to defend
the actions of Taylor or Danville Airlines.
This would give Reiger right to sue, keep his job, and to protect
himself from any further litigation on the issue. Also, Reiger has the rights of the 1990
American with Disabilities Act on his side, which protects him if has, “the
perception of having a disability, such as having a gene for a disease but not
yet showing symptoms” (Mead & Wicks, 2004, p. 4). This would also lead into his protection
under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996(HIPAA),
which protects his medical information through his personal consent. Assuming that the law is neither for or
against the issue, but fighting it would be costly, the ethics would still
stand and fighting the case would prove cumbersome for Danville Airlines, as
Reiger still has the ADA and HIPAA on his side.
Ethics and Decisions
The
ethics of the decisions as stated stands regardless of Reiger’s potential. When all is considered, this is a case where
ethics trumps legality and protecting your employee’s personal right to his
health is necessary. It is possible that
Reiger’s illness will emerge and cause issues for him as an employee, but it is
also possible, even in the slightest that they will not. Noting that Reiger now knows and has the
forethought to look for symptoms, Taylor should not move to change his
employment status based on these results.
Instead, she should find a way to help Reiger during his employment and
to develop a system of training and wellness that would benefit Reiger, his coworkers,
and the company as a whole.
References
Curley Jr., R., & Caperna, L.
(2003). The Brave New World Is Here: Privacy Issues and the Human Genome
Project. Defense Counsel Journal, 70(1), 22-35. Retrieved from
http://library.gcu.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=8983913&site=eds-live&scope=site
Mead,
J & Wicks, A.C. (2004). Danville Airlines. Charlottesville, VA: Darden Business
Publishing.
No comments:
Post a Comment