Is Genetic Testing Right for You and Your Family - Article Example

Genetic testing Introduction Genetic testing or DNA testing is a vital procedure used in healthcare to determine the prevalence of hereditary health complications. Additionally, the procedure also helps in the determination of the parentage of children among other serious investigations that may require the measurement of the DNA and relationship among people. In his article, Harold Pollack discusses the complications that arise from genetic testing. He observes that the changing lifestyle in the United States such as women giving birth at an advanced age often lead to complications some of which health care service providers may not answer even using genetic testing.

Furthermore, he argues that the eugenic potential of the technologies employed in genetic testing is a fundamental concern to most patients. Such other factors technological limits, risks, costs and intrusiveness of the process are predominant in his argument against the process. Summary Harold Pollack argues that while genetic testing is a practical procedure that provides measurable results, the resent cases of miscarriages among other drastic effects of the procedure are causes of worry and require effective investigation in order to determine their causes and possible solutions.

In building his argument, he explains that one in every two hundred cases of amniocenteses caused miscarriages and such is a cause of worry. He argues that genetic screening helps parents identify irregular traits in unborn children. This influences the parents’ decision concerning the pregnancies. He further notes that the trends extends to born children a feature that makes parents discriminate against their children based on the results of the tests. This he argues is reason enough to discourage the process since it causes social disharmony in families.

Critique In his article, Harold Pollack makes vital assertions that may raise questions on the ethics and morality of genetic testing. Despite such, I believe that genetic testing is a vital technology that is safe for families. He rightly points out that the deaths associated with the screening arose from changes in lifestyle. Most women give birth at an advanced age a feature that may increase the prevalence of pregnancy complications. Genetic testing provides effective ways of establishing the health of unborn children.

As Pollack established, most parents who found immense psychological abnormalities in their unborn children decided to abort such pregnancies. This proves the usefulness of screening pregnancies since it helps coupled plan their marriages and give birth to healthy babies (Fallat, Katz & Mercurio, 2013). The cost, technological limits and intrusiveness are minimal. The advantages of the process outweighs its disadvantages a feature that proves its suitability for any family. Conclusion In retrospect, genetic testing is a beneficial process and remains a milestone discovery in health care.

While Harold Pollack raises vital issues about the process, discouraging the tests is unthoughtful since the process has numerous benefits. He gives numerous examples where genetic testing helped discover anomalies in pregnant women thereby helping rectify such. His main contention is the fact that early disease detection may cause stigmatization of children. Such is not a substantial argument to use in discouraging the scientific test. Early diseases detection in pregnancies may save parents money should they terminate the pregnancy in cases where such is advisable.

Additionally, early disease detection helps parents manage the diseases thus improve the health of the patients. References Fallat, M. E., Katz, A. L. & Mercurio, M. R.’ et al. (2013). Ethical and Policy Issues in Genetic Testing and Screening of Children. Pediatrics Vol 131:620–622. http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/131/3/620 Pollack, H. (2010). Put to the test: As genetic screening gets cheaper and easier, its raising questions that health-care providers arent prepared to answer.

The American Prospect, 21(9), 21-24.