Genetic Screening for Mandatory Obesity Screening of Children

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Genetic screening for mandatory obesity screening of school-aged children
Pros and cons of screening for this health issue
Factors That Influence implementation
Ethics of Screening
References

Genetic screening for mandatory obesity screening of school-aged children

The progress in behavioral genetics points to the significance of biological heredity in character traits, as well as in medical conditions. Some examples of the latter include conditions such as cystic fibrosis, Down’s syndrome, Huntington’s disease, and many others. Some diseases come as a result of the interaction between an individual’s genetic variables and the immediate environmental factors. Such diseases include breast cancer. Although these diseases are associated with guilt and stigmatization, society does not apportion blame of the victims directly. This is the opposite for obesity, alcohol abuse, and drug abuse, which are said to be caused by an individual’s behavioral trait (McLellan, Lewis, O’Brien & Kleber, 1999).

Pros and cons of screening for this health issue

Adolescents usually need to believe that they require unequivocal control to adjust appropriately to life problems. Some children may know various conditions in their family. At times, they are aware that they are at risk of contracting some conditions. However, they are unable to articulate their concerns and anxieties. Studies conducted in Canada have revealed that children relish the opportunity to participate in such screening programs. Screening may also relieve the anxiety and stress of the parents about their child’s condition. In turn, this helps the family to discuss the problem more openly. Screening also equips the parent with knowledge of how to select the best environment for their children based on the genetic factors identified (Dalby, 1995). Some scholars argue that genetic screening deprives adolescents of their rights to make informed consent when they attain adulthood. This is in respect to whether or not they should participate in the screening program. It is widely observed that adults do not like being tested for conditions. The perception of adolescents may change when they mature. Screening may also lead to negative outcomes such as discrimination and stigmatization about their condition (Wertz, Fanos & Reilly, 1994).

Factors That Influence implementation

Usually, there is a difficulty in communicating the importance of a genetic examination result. A good example is in the case of cancer where the affected genetic condition results to risk. Usually, it is distant from the actual certainty that the person contracts the disease. This might be the same case in obesity. There are irregular occurring exceptions such as persons suffering from a congenital leptin deficiency. They exhibit a monogenic variation that eventually leads to obesity. The general understanding of risk and probability reports is limited. Even educated people have a challenge in using mathematical formulations of probability and scientific literacy. The principle of lifetime risk is misunderstood. Similarly, the concept that demographic factors influence average risk is also misunderstood (Weinstein, 1999).

The information obtained from screening has biological relevance to the relative of the patient, especially the close relatives. This enables the family to understand the risks involved or associated with the genetic condition. It also equips them with relevant knowledge on how to cope with the condition (Condit, Parrott & O’Grady, 2000).

Ethics of Screening

Many scholars have highlighted the significance of communication in counseling before and during genetic testing. They have emphasized the need for informed consent to be carried out as a process and not as a single event. This process should involve interaction between both parties instead of using expert advice, which is unidirectional flowing from the counselor to the individual. However, it has been noted that this approach might be challenging when being applied to minors (Condit, Parrott & O’Grady, 2000).

References

Condit C, Parrott R & O’Grady B. (2000). Principles and practices of communication processes of genetics in public health. In: Khoury MJ, Burke W, Thomson EJ, Eds. Genetics and Public Health in the 21st Century (pp. 549 –568). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Dalby S. (1995). GIG response to the UK Clinical Genetics Society report ‘The genetic testing of children’. J MED Genet. 32, 490 –491.

McLellan AT, Lewis DC, O’Brien CP & Kleber HD. (2000). Drug dependence, a chronic medical illness: Implications for treatment, insurance, and outcomes evaluation. JAMA. 284,1689–1695.

Weinstein ND. (1999). What does it mean to understand a risk? Evaluating risk comprehension. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 25, 15–20.

Wertz DC, Fanos JH & Reilly PR.(1994). Genetic testing for children and adolescents: who decides? JAMA. 272, 875–881.

Click Here To Order Now!

Genetic Screening for Mandatory Obesity Screening of Children

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We have qualified writers to help you.

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)