.

Philosophy 162F Lecture 9 Notes Ethical Treatment of Employees Privacy The Ethics of Genetic Screening in the Workplace, Joseph Kupfer  Screening Workers for Genetic Hypersusceptibility: Potential Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications from the Human Genome Project, Andrew C. Wicks, Lowell E. Sever, Rebekah Harty, Steven W. Gajewski, Miriam Marcus-Smith   What are genes? Genes are the physical bearers of heredity. They are the mechanism by which certain traits or characteristics are passed from organisms to their offspring. Genes alone do not produce characteristics. Only in combination with the environment can genes produce traits or characteristics. This is a causal limitation on the ability to identify genes with characteristics or traits. For example, many species of grasshoppers are known to have two quite different adult physical forms. Grasshoppers grow into a form capable of longer flight (along with other characteristics) when they grow into crowded situations. It is not usually easy to determine, from physiological examination alone, that the two forms belong to the same species. Another example is that of a disease in humans that prevents a person from properly ridding the body of copper. This disease is genetic in origin. Under the influence of proper treatment, this condition is negligible. In humans, genes are encoded, so to speak, in deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) in the nuclear material of cells. The patterns within strands of the DNA interact with proteins within the cell in order to produce other proteins. These proteins go about doing the work of the cell. It is possible to identify which proteins lead to certain results within an organism. Similarly, it is possible to identify which patterns of DNA lead to the production of these proteins. This process, however, is very difficult. Proteins that do important work are often produced at the end of a long string of chemical reactions involving a host of proteins. Often, one can identify a pattern in DNA that is correlated to a particular hereditary characteristic, even though there is little reason to believe that this pattern leads to the characteristic or even leads to anything at all. (There are patterns in DNA that are thought to be of no use. This is often called, "junk DNA.") The patterns that correlate to particular conditions but are not necessarily responsible for these conditions are called, "markers." The science of identifying genetic markers with certain characteristics or traits is one that is doubly statistical.  It relies on the statistical correlation of an identifiable pattern of DNA with a certain condition. (Technical limitation) In most circumstances, a condition that may be caused or encouraged by a gene is not guaranteed to occur because of the presence of the gene. (Causal limitation) The technical limitation of identifying a genetic marker with a specific characteristic or trait can be lessened if the presence of the marker can be identified within an individual and within family members of that individual and the characteristic or trait can be found amongst those family members. In many cases, when someone is aware that they have a certain gene, they can take measures that reduce their risk for expressing the associated characteristic or trait. In some cases, the risk for this individual becomes less than that of the general public. Violation of Privacy Kupfer suggests that there are three factors that influence an appraisal of a violation of privacy: Concent to the gathering of information The nature of the information The results of the information gathering Consent Most workers do not have the ability to refuse to genetic screening. Because of concerns over the confidentiality of test results, Wicks et al. recommend that testing be done by the doctors or professionals chosen by the employee rather than the employer. The nature of private information and the results of information gathering These issues are hard to separate, especially in the area that we are interested in. One result of genetic screening is that it can lead to discrimination. Eugenics is often seen as an example of discrimination related to hereditary traits. (It is important to note that most of the traits that eugenicists were interested in have not been shown to be heritable.) The identification of genes for the purpose of judging the ability of individuals to perform a job may encourage discrimination that already exists in the community. The discovery of a genetic marker in an individual may lead to them being fired because of their risk to the company. This may be the case even if the discovery of the marker may lead to a reduced risk that they actually express a characteristic or trait that is counterproductive. Genes and Normality Too often, people jump to the conclusion that genes determine the normality of an individual. "When screening uncovers a genetic abnormality, the individual can feel morally defective—cursed or damned." (Kupfer, pg. 285) This quote betrays the way that most people think about genes and health. There is one way to be healthy and one way to have genes—other ways are abnormal. Yet genes and even physically expressed characteristics or traits do not necessarily determine what a person can or ought to do or ought to be treated. There are a number of ways that people can live productive lives as long as the environment is appropriate. There can be costs associated with producing an appropriate environment. It is not clear who should bear these costs. However, neither is it clear that businesses should not bear at least some of these costs. For there is, in law at least, some recognition that businesses must bear costs associated with providing a safe workplace and granting access to employment to those who are deemed to be, "disabled." Wicks et al. credit the right to freedom from discrimination and the right to equal opportunity for these legal principles. Justice and Autonomy We think that it is unjust to punish someone or deny them something because of something beyond their control. In some cases, we do deny someone an opportunity because they lack certain qualifications. E.g., we do not allow the blind to become fighter pilots. Yet in this case, it seems that it is not possible to allow these people to take these positions, so it is a case that is beyond our control. If it is beyond our control, then it is beyond the concern of ethics. Be warned! Not everything is as impossible as many people think. This is an important thing to remember in connection with the relationship between genes and characteristics or traits and in other circumstances. Whether or not we have a gene is beyond our control. The expression of a gene is sometimes within our control. Even when the expression of a gene is inevitable or highly inevitable, it is not immediate. Thus the case of someone with a certain gene is importantly different from the case of a person who is blind. The former individual does not yet have an actual condition that currently effects their ability to carry out their job. Suggestions from Kupfer: Genetic screening policies must exclude workers from only a few jobs (in order to allow these individuals to find other jobs). Genetic screening policies should not discriminate against groups that have already been unjustly treated. Genetic screening policies in a corporation should be confined to work-specific characteristics or traits. Responses to genetic information should place priority on relocation of an employee rather than on firing. Suggestions from Wicks et al.: The costs of genetic screening policies are not likely to significantly decrease the costs associated with illness that a corporation is likely to incur. Informed consent must be part of any genetic screening policy. Policies must do as much as possible to ensure confidentiality, including limiting the information provided to corporations. Foundational Justifications of Privacy from Genetic Screening Kantian Kant demands that we treat people as ends in themselves rather than means to an end. Kant does allow that people can form contracts for mutual benefit, however. It seems unlikely, however, that people can simply break contracts or dispense of employees because of the potential for less benefit from an individual. Such an action would be to treat a person as a means. Utilitarianism Courses of action are justified because they lead to the most good. It might be the case that letting someone go from a position due to genetic screening would produce more overall money, but this is not (by far) the only thing to consider when calculating utility. Denying people work on the basis of their genes does not seem to be a good rule to follow if one adopts rule utilitarianism. There would be no work for these people. It seems unlikely that allowing these people to remain unemployed maximizes utility. This, however, might not be a problem if there was some other means of support for these people. Whistleblowing Whistleblowing occurs when an employee informs the law, a regulatory agency, or the general public of the illegal or immoral actions of his or her employer. This brings into conflict the duties of an employee to his or her employee and his or her other ethical duties. These sorts of issues are important for a Friedmann-type position of the role of the corporation, as Friedmann appeals to honesty and a certain ethical playing field for corporations. Some Paradoxes of Whistleblowing, Michael Davis NB: Note the introduction of Davis’ piece. He lays out all the sections that will be in his essay and the role that they will play. Justification: Weak moral justification: An action is justified if it is not morally forbidden. Strong moral justification: An action is justified if it is required by morality. Rational justification: An action is justified if a rational response to the circumstances require the action. Davis cares only for justifying whistleblowing in the moral sense. Characteristics of whistleblowing: Involves revealing information that would not ordinarily be revealed. Involves an intention (actual or declared) to prevent something bad. Involves an agent who reveals information to which they have been entrusted. The whistleblower does not reveal information in order for self-preservation or for some other prudential motive. The whistleblower reveals information that an organization does not wish to be revealed. Whistleblowing is thus in conflict with the duty that one has to the organization that placed trust in the whistleblower. The Standard Theory of Whistleblowing (pg. 299) Whistleblowing is justified when: (S1) Serious and considerable harm  (S2) Respected chain of command  (S3) Exhausted internal procedures  Whistleblowing is required when, in addition to the above:  (S4) Access to evidence  (S5) Expectation of prevention  Sufficient vs. Necessary A cause is sufficient for a result if the cause will always produce the result. A cause is necessary for a result if the result will never occur without the cause.  Paradox One: The paradox of burden  Whistleblowers usually face great risks because of their actions. The conditions of the standard theory cannot provide enough justification for an agent to take up such risk. Paradox Two: The paradox of missing harm Whistleblowers often act in conditions when they cannot prevent harm. They often report on harm after-the-fact. Paradox Three: The paradox of failure Whistleblowers have not had much success in actually preventing harm. Complicity Theory (pg. 302) You are morally required to reveal what you know to the public (or an appropriate agent or representative of it) when: (C1) Information derives from personal work (C2) Voluntary participation (C3) Belief in organizational wrong-doing (C4) Individual work will contribute to wrong-doing unless revelation (C5) Justified belief in C3 and C4 (C6) C3 and C4 are true  Advantages of complicity theory: Relies on moral wrong-doing, not harm. This allows the theory to apply to a broader range of cases. Avoiding moral wrong-doing is a greater demand than preventing harm. The act of whistleblowing allows the whistleblower from being complicit in the wrong-doing. Thus it can be successful even if preventing harm is not successful. A test of the complicity theory: pg. 304. Whistleblowing and Employee Loyalty, Ronald Duska Duska does not believe that there is a significant problem with whistleblowing because no loyalty is owed to a corporation. Social idealists: Believe that there is some reality to groups and organizations of people. Groups can be the bearers of loyalty and other moral concerns. Social atomists: Believe that groups of people have no status. Groups are only the people of which they are comprised. Loyalty to a group is to be explained away as a relation between individuals. Moderate position: Groups are not legitimate entities. Loyalty cannot simply be explained away. The moderate position is attractive because in many groups we see that the organization of that group introduces special demands and considerations. (E.g., businesses.) The relationships that determine the nature of the group can be the basis for claims of loyalty (or other relationships) to the group. Why no loyalty in business? Duska claims that adopting the moderate position does not mean that we have to be loyal to a business. This is because the natures of the relationships in business are not ones that we can found loyalty upon. "Loyalty depends on ties that demand self sacrifice with no expectation of reward." (pg. 308) The relationships in business are based upon self-interest. These are antithetical to loyalty. Corporations cannot be viewed as analogous to sports teams because they take place outside of the social conventions surrounding games. In games, there is voluntary participation under a set of rules in order to reach a socially determined victory. In business, there is not voluntary participation. The consequences of the victories and losses in business have a greater impact than the outcomes of games.   Home.

.