Moral Obligation

Throughout the chapter, Genetic Choices, the issue of moral obligations in regards to genetic information about potential disease and illness. Upon review, I find individuals to have a moral obligation to warn others if they have knowledge about their genetic predisposition in regards to disease and/ or illness.
The first case I will discuss is when an individual knows their family members are either at great risk or are certain to have a specific disease and/ or illness due to their diagnosis or genetic predisposition. In this scenario, the ill individual may argue a right to privacy and autonomy and not only demand medical personnel to not inform the family, but they too refuse to inform them. In regards to the ill individual, they have a moral obligation to inform those at risk based upon beneficence, in order to avoid placing harm onto others, as well as utility, where they must do what creates more good than harm. Although the individual will have their privacy breached, the harm coming from that is significantly less than what would be experienced by the others who are at risk if they go without knowing. Similar moral
argumentation can be made in regards to the medical personnel involved. Although they would be breaching patient confidentiality and disregarding autonomy, more harm than good would come from the at-risk individuals not knowing which proves it to be favorable in regards to beneficence. In regards to utility, the argument could go both ways as the medical personnel would be open to litigation and licensure termination, but in regards to morals, I still find them morally obligated to inform the individuals in danger.
The second case I will discuss is when the physician knows the results of genetic testing of their patient and it finds them to be genetically predisposed to a disease and/or illness.
It has been argued that the physician may feel the patient cannot mentally withstand this news and that it will launch them into depression and other mental issues. The fault in this argument is that there is no accurate way to predict, without a doubt, whether an individual will have a mental issue from finding out this information. Based upon this, I find the physician to have a moral obligation in regards to beneficence, as telling them will do more good than harm, and utility as the doctor will be free from the repercussions they would face if they withheld the information and the patient will have the information they need in regards to their
health.
It is further argued whether or not there is a difference in the severity of the condition the individuals are at risk for as well as if early knowledge of it would change the overall outcome. For example, if the individual is guaranteed to develop the disease or illness in question does it carry more moral obligation than if they are just highly probable of being affected by it? Further, if the disease and/or illness cannot be treated does that change the moral obligation? In addition, is the obligation different if the individual has other conditions that will impact their health in more severe ways than the illness in question? Although all of these different scenarios could be said to complicate the issue at hand, I find knowledgeable individuals to have a moral obligation in all scenarios based upon beneficence and utility as addressed above.
Overall, I find individuals to always have a moral obligation to inform others if they are at risk for disease and/or illness.