Personal Genome Mapping: Potential and Dangers from an

Ethical Perspective
Ian Hamdan
40280231

1
Introduction
Modern medicine employs personal genome mapping as a crucial advancement which offers
people complete knowledge about their genetic risk factors for conditions such as cancer
together with Alzheimer’s and cardiovascular diseases. The primary ethical matter in this case
requires healthcare providers together with policymakers to prioritize patients' right to genetic
information while ensuring proper utilization of this knowledge. This paper examines the
question of whether people ought to receive unlimited genome data and analyzes institutional
responsibilities to provide informed access and equitable use of this technology. Personal
genome mapping empowers health choices but strong regulatory measures such as mandatory
counseling and data privacy laws with consistent access must exist to protect individuals from
psychological damage and discrimination and equity violations. The established safeguards
follow the bioethical principles of respect for autonomy as well as beneficence and non-
maleficence and justice according to Bioethics in Canada (Baylis et al., 2020).

Case Summary
DNA analysis through personal genome mapping allows individuals to discover potential genetic
predispositions. Through DTC testing methods 23andMe and AncestryDNA enable customers to
bypass traditional medical systems. Some users utilize genetic information to make healthcare
prevention plans although others misunderstand the details of their genetic findings when they do
not receive medical guidance (McGuire & Burke, 2011). Individuals often develop anxiety while
changing their lifestyles through ambiguous data which sometimes leads to wasteful medical
procedures. Information availability to insurers and employers through genetic tests creates
opportunities for insurance discrimination and job-related prejudice against individuals.

Canada does not provide universal national genetic discrimination protection despite the initial
purpose of Bill S-201 because certain aspects were struck down by the Supreme Court (Caulfield
et al., 2013). In contrast, America has the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) to
shield its citizens. The lack of uniform legal standards creates multiple ethical issues pertaining
to privacy issues while simultaneously affecting consent procedures and fairness principles.
Inadequate access levels to genome testing create social health disparities which produces
challenges to justice principles (Baylis et al., 2020, Ch. 5).

2
Ethical Analysis
Autonomy vs. Paternalism

Under the principle of respect for autonomy people receive the right to obtain their genetic
information. The principle gives people who have received informed information the freedom to
decide about their healthcare where genetic testing is among their possible choices (Beauchamp
& Childress, 2019). According to Bioethics in Canada individuals have the power to control their
decisions using their personal value systems despite different opinions (Baylis et al., 2020, Ch.
3).
The interpretation of personal genome data becomes challenging when a person lacks
professional guidance. The right to paternalistic decisions generates conflict because limiting
access or insisting on interpretation could prevent possible harm. Kant’s theory of ethical
autonomy states that guardianship of rational decisions through sufficient information leads to
treating individuals with respect as ends (O’Neill, 2002). Genetic counseling requirements for
DTC testing create a functional compromise that safeguards patients' right to autonomous choice
as well as protects them from causing harmful consequences.

Beneficence and Non-Maleficence

Genome mapping provides strong beneficence potential because it helps identify diseases in
early stages for prevention purposes. BRCA1 gene mutation detection leads to the development
of preventive strategies. Medical decisions which originate from faulty interpretation of data
breach non-maleficence because they create unnecessary damage (Baylis et al., 2020 Ch. 4).

The Bioethics in Canada manual applies an inclusive definition of harm that extends to
encompass psychological and emotional damage instead of limiting it to physical injuries.
Patients who do not receive professional interpretation might develop distress alongside anxiety
and may make unjustified drastic medical choices. The practice of mandatory counseling can
fulfill both autonomy respect and physician duty of care standards (Baylis et al., 2020, Ch. 2).

3
Privacy and Genetic Discrimination
Your genetic traits make you instantly detectable and call for strong protection because of their
extreme sensitivity. Having your genetic data misused by different groups or improper parties
can harm your life permanently. Bioethics in Canada says that patients must trust their healthcare
providers to keep personal information private to protect them from discrimination and
exploitation (Baylis et al. 2020 Chapter 7).

Even with its existing protection GINA system the laws in Canada against genetic information
misuse still require additional development. Following the Supreme Court decision on Bill S-201
genetic data received reduced protection against discrimination according to Caulfield et al.
(2013). Doctors and research teams must follow strict permission rules when storing patient
genetic information. Keeping personal privacy safe supports the fundamental principle of
respecting individuals as established in this course and CIOMS international bioethics
guidelines.

Justice and Equity

Public health agencies should provide funding for genome mapping services to disadvantaged
groups in order to protect their access to vital health information. Technology improvements will
make health gaps worse unless equal access actions are put into place.

Personal Position
People should benefit from personal genome mapping procedures while following established
ethical rules. According to Kantian ethical concepts we must help people access their rational
decision-making abilities through proper support (O'Neill, 2002). Unlike other views
Utilitarianism promotes good for everyone including protecting people from incorrect results
(Mill, 1863).

4
I endorse implementing a set of ethical rules that require genetic testing companies to educate
customers about tests plus guard patients from biased handling of their results plus help people
who cannot afford testing costs. An ethical framework that blends these four principles achieves
the best balance according to both our readings and general morality.

Conclusion
The availability of personal genome mapping enables tailor-made medical treatments yet poses
deep moral concerns. Our study reveals that ethical standards like patient independence and
beneficent care require proper protection systems. A legal requirement for genetic counseling
plus secure patient privacy plus equal health care access will help genome mapping protect both
public value and patient dignity. According to Bioethics in Canada our technology progress
needs to follow ethical standards of justice and respect for individuals in healthcare (Baylis et al.
2020).

5
References:

Baylis, F., Downie, J., Kenny, N. P., & Sherwin, S. (2020). Bioethics in Canada: A philosophical
introduction (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press.

Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2019). Principles of biomedical ethics (8th ed.). Oxford
University Press.

Caulfield, T., Burningham, S., Joly, Y., Master, Z., Shabani, M., Borry, P., & Burgess, M. M.
(2013). A review of the key issues associated with the commercialization of biobanks. Journal of
Law and the Biosciences, 1(1), 94–110.

Chadwick, R. (2014). Ethics and the new genetics: An integrated approach. Routledge.

Garrison, N. A. (2013). Genomic justice for Native Americans: Impact of the Havasupai case.
Arizona State Law Journal, 45(3), 799–820.

Joly, Y., Saulnier, K. M., Osien, G., & Knoppers, B. M. (2017). The ethical framing of
personalized medicine. Current Genetic Medicine Reports, 5(1), 36–43.

McGuire, A. L., & Burke, W. (2011). An unwelcome side effect of direct-to-consumer personal
genome testing: The surprising importance of medical interpretation. Journal of the American
Medical Association, 306(1), 96–97.

Mill, J. S. (1863). Utilitarianism. Parker, Son, and Bourn.

O’Neill, O. (2002). Autonomy and trust in bioethics. Cambridge University Press.