medigraphic.com

2020, Number 2

<< Back Next >>

Revista Colombiana de Bioética 2020; 15 (2)

Dividuation and Incompossibility of Ethical Principles in Genotypic Risk Self-management

Clavijo-Montoya HA

Language: Spanish
References: 17
Page:
PDF size: 175.58 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Purpose/Context. Today, with the possibility of detecting our genetic predisposition to an increasing number of diseases, including the widely promoted worldwide “at-home genetic testing,” genomics has begun to raise conflicts that were not considered years ago.
Method/Approach. This article studies such conflicts from Ricardo Maliandi’s convergent ethics using a qualitative method, according to Gilles Deleuze’ concept of dividual applied to these scientific advances.
Results/Findings. People are facing the new reality of having genetic markers associated with risks of diseases whose prevention or treatment is still limited. Then, the dividuation process at the genotypic level increases conflict due to the emergence of new forms of optimal incompossibility between ethical principles.
Discussion/Conclusions/Contributions. With these available techno-scientific advances, individuals should not only worry about their phenotype but also about self-managing their genotype amidst the uncertainty of their health. It is necessary to consider the role of health policies in these challenges; the decisions of organizations and society will depend on their guidance or omissions.


REFERENCES

  1. Christensen, Jen. 2017. “At-home genetic test for 10 diseases gets first FDA approval.”CNN Health, April 6, 2017. https://edition.cnn.com/2017/04/06/health/

  2. 23andme-fda-approval-genetic-disease-test-bn/index.html2. Deleuze, Gilles. 1999. Conversaciones. Pre-Textos.

  3. Fiedorowicz, Jess G., James A. Mills, Adam Ruggle, Douglas Langbehn, y Jane S.Paulsen. 2011. “Suicidal Behavior in Prodromal Huntington Disease.” NeurodegenerativeDiseases 8, no. 6: 483-490. https://doi.org/10.1159/000327754

  4. Food and Drug Administration. (2017). FDA allows marketing of first direct-to-consumertests that provide genetic risk information for certain conditions. https://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm551185.htm

  5. Food and Drug Administration. (2019). Direct-to-Consumer Tests. https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/vitro-diagnostics/direct-consumer-tests

  6. Facing Our Risk of Cancer Empowered. s.f. “FORCE.” https://www.facingourrisk.org/index.php

  7. González Valenzuela, Juliana. 2017. El cuerpo del alma y el alma del cuerpo. Ciudadde México: FCE.

  8. Hottois, Gilbert. 2007. ¿Qué es la bioética? Bogotá: Universidad El Bosque.

  9. Lemke, Thomas. 2004. “Disposition and determinism genetic diagnosis in risksociety.” The Sociological Review 52, no. 4: 550-566. https://doi.org/10.1111%-2Fj.1467-954X.2004.00495.x

  10. Lemke, Thomas. 2005. “From eugenics to the government of genetic risks.” EnGenetic Governance: Health, Risk and Ethics in the Biotech Era, editado por RobinBunton y Alan Petersen, 95-105. New York: Routledge. http://www.thomaslemkeweb.de/engl.%20texte/From%20Eugenics.pdf

  11. Maliandi, Ricardo. 2010. Ética convergente. Fenomenología de la conflictividad.Buenos Aires: Ediciones Las Cuarenta.

  12. Maliandi, Ricardo, y Oscar Thüer. 2008. Teoría y praxis de los principios bioéticos.Remedios de Escalada: Ediciones de la Universidad Nacional de Lanús.

  13. Mukherjee, Siddartha. 2017. El gen. Barcelona: Editorial Debate.

  14. National Institutes of Health. (s.f.). “What is direct-to-consumer genetic testing?”MedlinePlus. https://medlineplus.gov/genetics/understanding/dtcgenetictesting/directtoconsumer/

  15. Rose, Nikolas. 2012. Políticas de la vida. Biomedicina, poder y subjetividad en el sigloXXI. La Plata: UNIPE Editorial Universitaria.

  16. Erkelens, A., Lineke Derks, Aisha S. Sie, L. Egbers, G. Woldringh, Judith B. Prins,Peggy Manders, y Nicoline Hoogerbrugge. 2017. “Lifestyle Risk Factors forBreast Cancer in BRCA1/2-Mutation Carriers Around Childbearing Age.” Journalof Genetic Counseling 26, no. 4: 785–791. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-016-0049-4

  17. Winchester. E. y Shirley V. Hodgson. 2006. “Psychosocial and ethical issues relatingto genetic testing for BRCA1 and BRCA2 breast cancer susceptibility genes.”Women’s Health 2, no. 3: 357–373. https://doi.org/10.2217/17455057.2.3.357




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com