There has been tremendous advancements in the realm of genetic testing, especially in the field of autosomal dominate diseases. Major breakthroughs in this field have produced ethical and moral dilemmas for physicians; conflicts between a patients’ autonomy vs. beneficence and nonmaleficence (doing what’s best for the patient), which has made counseling patients who have severe genetic disorders like Huntington’s disease very difficult. Do you tell a patient that he/she will likely die from a fatal disease? Do you tell the relatives? Do you choose the benefits of notifying the patient over the Psychological harm it may cause? These are so many questions and ethical considerations that arise for a provider when genetic testing predicts a serious, life-threatening disease.
One question of particular interest for this case is whether or not a child should be informed or not of his increased genetic risk of a fatal disease, which sparks another round of ethical and moral consideration. Should parents have the right to tell their child that he/she is likely to contract a fatal disease? Does the provider have a duty to inform?
Many legal arguments can be made to support a child’s right to decide whether or not they want to reveal genetic testing, and many arguments can be made to support the right for a provider to withhold the devastating results of the fatal disease because of the potential adverse effects. Despite the legal impacts, the decision to inform or not will always vary depending on the ethical principles of the provider. These decisions will be influenced by the provider’s moral and ethical structure.
As a provider, faced with such circumstances as the ones found in the case, I would not inform my patient of the potential risk of a fatal disease. I wouldn’t tell my patient’s friends, relatives, or favorite furry animal of the critical findings because I