The article discusses whether it's both professional and ethical for genomics and genetics to release the DNA and fine chromosomal test results to their patients in full without considering the consequences. DNA results can truly change its life; it could mean breaking of a marriage, realization that death is killing slowly from within, acquiring funding to fight the illness, higher funding into research for a disease cure.
Some patient's results withheld while others are given in part to protect the patient interests. The practice has proven to be a dilemma for the society because both ways there are harder consequences. For example, Dr. Ian Krantz and Nancy Spinner in their study concluded that giving detailed genetic test information would lead patients and parents to more stress if the results pronounced a chronic disease.
While both parents and medical practitioners have a responsibility to reveal the test results to their children and patients respectively, the moral and social consequences seem to outweigh this because some diseases are incurable at the moment, or the test results pronounce a life long illness. For example "The do not harm" principle in medicine puts genomics in a hard place it's important to reveal results as they are but if the results include incurable diseases, it means a sudden death to the patients. It is, however, also unethical for the doctors to withhold the information. Giving pregnant women DNA information about their fetus could lead them into aborting a child with a high risk of cancer.
With the advancement in medical technology, it is clear that more genetic and genomics test results will be obtained at a cheaper price. Companies like 23andMe offer direct consumer testing services; this means that people can know their health status even from their living rooms. The powerful technology can help fight against age-old diseases, this, however, comes with harder questions where some uncertainties exist as in whole-genome sequencing (WGS) where a vast gray area is observed, and scientists cannot explain. An example is the design of the Web-based venture called My46 storage of DNA sequencing results online giving patients the ability to choose what they want to know about their results.
The testing of Amanda's chromosomes proved helpful for the parents to discover what was killing the kid. This led to the need for testing all family members as a cautionary measure proving that the genomic chromosomal testing is an important tool; it's, however, an expensive venture, but could also help acquire funding for extreme cases, or change children's feeding habits to counter the discovered illnesses.
The article clearly explains to the reader the various advances in DNA testing, the implications of such advances, and the social and ethical responsibilities of the society in the topic. With the evidence from the different cases, it's clear that DNA tests can be beneficial and harmful depending with the current medical discovery in the treatment of such diseases.
The article fits in the wider medical field in that any medical results should be taken with caution; like the case of where a test revealing that a father was not the biological father to their child, or revealing terminal illnesses to elderly people. In such cases proper counseling should be administered to the patients.