A Case in Moral Philosophy: Genetic Testing: Science Fiction to Science Fact
...us other jobs are all the same way. It is absolutely essential that these people are healthy and in the right frame of mind so that they can do their jobs to their best possible ability. OSHA regulations require that employers provide as safe and healthful working environment. That is their main concern. Even with their best efforts, employers cannot be fully sure that all their employees will not have some sort of adverse reaction to something in the environment. Mr. Yesley uses the story of beryllium sickness as an example. Normally people aren’t affected by beryllium but approximately 2% of people will get beryllium sickness. It is unfeasible for these people to be protected because no matter how much protection you can give them, they will still get sick. It is more cost effective to simply not hire these people than to retrofit the entire work area for them. Barry Steinhardt is the associate director of the ACLU. He is worried that genetic test may only be used to make sure employees are healthy now but in the future they could be used to deny people access to insurance and employment. A perfect example of this is during the 70’s when people of African descent were tested for sickle cell trait. Many people were misdiagnosed and told they had the actual disease. Insurance companies got wind of this and used it as the justification for a big rate increase for minorities. Some children were not allowed to play school sports because of the misdiagnoses. What we have to do is ask ourselves is the performance of employees all we want them to be? The best course of action now, in the absence of statuary precedents, is to start to formulate boundaries that people can’t cross. Right now we can anticipate problems. We can look toward the future and make laws to prevent them now. This is a much better alternative to writings laws in the midst of genetic controversy. Most of Mr. Steinhardt argument is based upon a Kantian/Rawlsian moral argument. He essentially is saying that people should only get genetic testing done if and only if they want to get it. This is quite demonstrative of Kant’s categorical imperative. By testing people for flaws in their genes, employers are treating their employees simple as a means to and end. If people had a choice in the testing this would be different. This argument is also Rawlsian because of a question that Mr. Steinhardt asked Mr. Yesley. The question was “Would it be ok with you, if a gene test was performed on you?” While not directly asked, I’m sure Mr. Steinhardt also wanted to know if Mr. Yesley would tolerate being discriminated against because of his genes. In order to rationally answer that question, one has to think back to Rawls’ original position behind the “veil of ignorance.” In the most vulnerable state, would Yesley tolerate being discriminated against? The answer, of course, was no. The argument for genetic testing comes from a utilitarian and natural law point of view. Having people be genetically tested will increase the overall good. People need to put aside some of their concerns and submit to the greater good. If people like air traffic controllers have a disease that would cause them to misdirect a flight and kill hundreds of people, this would cause a lot of unhappiness. Therefore that, under the utilitarian principle, would be an immoral ...