BTEC 9003: LEGAL, ETHICAL AND SOCIAL ASPECTS OF BIOSCIENCE GE

Name: ANN LE FAN: LE0104 ID: 2089123

The stakeholders that are affected by Graces decision to take the genetics test and the results are Graces children, the small regional airline, potential passengers of the airline and the general community in which she flies over and Grace herself. Benefits: It is questionable as to whether taking the test and knowing the results of the test is of any benefit to Grace. The facts do not give any information as to whether there are any preventions that can be done in regards to sudden death by heart attacks, there is no improvement to her health in change of lifestyle and due to the fact that Grace would have already suspected her susceptibility to heart attacks given her family history, whether it was of any real necessity to have taken the genetic test. But the confirmation that she has this susceptibility may help her prepare for the future of her children, benefiting them by planning for a care giver and perhaps setting up a fund to assist them in the event that she has a sudden heart attack. Minimizing harm: Arguably there is no harm suffered by Grace as she is aware of her susceptibility due to her family history already and by confirmation of her high risk she may minimize the impact it will have on her children by planning ahead for them. Knowing the results may help her decide upon a career change to prevent the harming of her passengers and the airlines liability should she have a sudden heart attack during a flight. Respect: There is no evidence to suggest that she took the test involuntarily but the facts do not state whether she was given enough information before taking the test to have made an informed consent. Questions then arise as to whether she knows who would have access to such results? And the certainty, interpretation and accuracy of the results in which she seeks to rely on? The results may encourage her to test her children to further plan and warn them of the possibility but this would raise issues in regards to whether the children want to know, whether they have self autonomy to make the decision to get tested. Reiterating on benefits then, if the children were then tested, it might benefit the children to know of the disease so that they can start a lifestyle change earlier to prevent the heart attack, perhaps this would produce more promising results than changing ones lifestyle at 41. But the possible psychological harm of pending death via heart attack caused to the children may out weight this benefit.

BTEC 9003: LEGAL, ETHICAL AND SOCIAL ASPECTS OF BIOSCIENCE GE

Name: ANN LE FAN: LE0104 ID: 2089123

Should her employers, the airline, have a right to know? Surely if an employee operating a plane was found to be susceptible to sudden heart attacks, the airline would be highly liable. But of the airline were to seek this information out without authority then it would be a clear invasion of privacy. Fairness: If her employers did know, they might try to limit her flights or give her leave. This is unfair and is discrimination towards Grace, but then one could argue that in the considering the interest of society in general, that the discrimination is necessary to protect the wider community. There is a high risk that she might have a heart attack and crash the plane injuring many others. Position: The taking of the test on Graces part did more harm than good to her due to the fact that there was no preventative measures anyways and the change in lifestyle has had no effect of decreasing the risk. Yes, it gives her confirmation that she has the mutation and is susceptible and allows her to plan for her children, but one could argue that you should plan for a rainy day anyways given that she know of her family history and you never know when youre going to die. It also leaves her open to discrimination by her employer should they find out about the results but may protect the communities interest then as whole in preventing such a risky person from flying.