Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
Introduction
It is noteworthy that technology is applied in almost all fields as pertains to professional careers. Thus, its introduction has come with advantages and disadvantages based on an individual’s understanding and critique. Most importantly, it has come with numerous controversies which are either ethical or outcome-based. In the medical field, for instance, technology has taken over most of the work done by practitioners as it is considered the most accurate mode of treatment. However, everything has not been smooth as processes that employ the use of technology have triggered disagreements.
Hence, some of the people concerned have tried to defend the use of technology while others have criticized its application. These disagreements should still be expected in the future as technology is introduced in the medical field. Moreover, this is not something that can be eliminated within a reduced time.
Main body
Guthrie Robert in 1961 invented technology to be used in the testing of newborns for a disorder known as phenylketonuria (PKU). This is a genetic disorder in newborns that prevent the body from processing protein consumed. As a result, the newborns undergo severe mental retardation. Guthrie developed this technology with an aim of helping in the diagnosis of these newborns for PKU and other diseases; little did he know that it could result in technological disagreements. In addition, it somehow lessened the process involved in the diagnosis of phenylketonuria in newborns. This is so when compared to the methods used earlier which consumed a lot of time and were considered not accurate. The innovation of Guthrie was expected to be received positively by the medical community, but that did not happen (Hopson 2007).
It is worth noticing that in newborn screening testing for ailments occurs all with the use of only one drop of blood from the newborns. Additionally, this screening technology is being considered to be used in the future with a DNA-based technology to help discover more genetic abnormalities in newborns. Hence, it will greatly expand the medical community’s ability to detect and control these genetic disorders (Jenkins & Dale 84).
While this technology has augmented the aptitude to discover the genetic disorders in newborns, it is evident to have regenerated much of the debate that has beleaguered the process of newborn screening for more than 40 years. Furthermore, the critiques who had initially weighed down on the issue have awakened and this time with a more vicious approach on the issue of screening in newborns. Most importantly, a number of controversies have emerged and most of them are based on its legitimacy, its operational procedures and the importance of its outcome to the patients. One of the controversies involves the application of this technology in the medical field; thus some claim it is not permitted by the laws of the country. As a result, they perceive it as an illegal act that associates with a criminal offense (Glidden, 8).
For example, in the Netherlands where the use of this technology is forbidden, a couple went to court in a case that involved the use of this technology on their infant child. It is alleged that the father of the baby wanted the DNA sample results of his child to be released so as to reveal the genetic disorder that ailing the child. On the contrary, his wife was refuting this idea claiming that this was against the law. In the end, the court ruled in favor of the husband even though the application of this technology is not allowed according to the laws of the Netherlands. Thus, it is noted that there are some legislators who defended the court’s ruling claiming that the child’s life was at stake.
On the contrary, other legislators differed with their colleagues claiming that the court ruling was wrong as there is no special case in the implementation of the law. The other controversy involved the fiscal aspect of the technology. Whereby, financial experts argue that the long-term budget of treating the children who test positive is too costly. Thus, the technology should not be used in health facilities. However, this idea is countered by various medical organizations for example, the American Pediatrics Association who claim that the government should take up the responsibility of funding this process (Lam & pang 9).
Additionally, the fear of clients’ exploitation financially when seeking the services of this advanced medical technology is a controversy that has come about with its implementation and was fanned by human rights organizations. However, this was again refuted by health organizations particularly the Medical Doctors Association, who argue that the cost of treatment is taken care of by the insurance cover; thus it should not be a cause of alarm. Similarly, another controversy involved medical experts who argued that the children who test positive may be guaranteed potential treatment but no cure, thus the technology of newborn screening should be abolished (Andrews 162).
Furthermore, the results from this technology can only be used to establish the basis to treat the patients in case found positive for genetic disorders. However, this can not be used to establish the curative procedure of the patients; thus the procedure seems not essential in the medical field. These controversies were as well refuted by the doctors association which defended the technology application. In addition, they cited the advantages of using this technology insisting that it delivers an accurate outcome that can be used for future medication references (Bowden, 74).
The implementation of this technology resulted in yet another controversy about its application during treatment. Some medical experts disputed that the procedures followed during treatment are not uniform in every health facility. Whereby, some health facilities test for the 29 conditions, for example, the United States as recommended by the American college of medical genetics. It is thus noted that other health facilities test for 40 conditions as evident in the UK. As a result, these variations in the mode of treatment raise questions on the accuracy of the technology. On the other hand, its inventors defended it arguing that each machine installed in a health facility comes with an operation manual that is similar. It is noteworthy that the critiques acknowledge the use of the technology except for the above mentioned controversies (Orshan 420).
New technology in newborn screening that was made functional in 1990’s, seem to have improved the medical process as it is said to make use of one drop of blood to discover four times more disorders than the previously applied techniques. In addition, DNA-microarray technology that has been developed recently offers the chance of advancing the newborn screening to enable it detect hundreds of genetic disorders that cause mutation. In her argument, Beth Tarini a pediatric professor noted that the process of newborn screening should not only involve the use of one drop of blood, but the aftermath of the process should be considered as well (Sharpe & Carter 241).
In the modern society, technology seems to drive the daily lives of individuals, and the same applies to medicine. However, the critiques of technology in medicine insist that it should not only be introduced because it makes the treatment process easier. As a result, they suggest that proper measures should first be put in place to ensure its operation is smooth.
Thus, for the case of newborn screening technology, there should be increased communication between parents and health care providers on the screening schedule and coordination of care program for the children who test positively (Wallace 70). A recent research carried out portrays that most parents in the United Kingdom and United States endorses the newborn screening of their children to detect genetic disorders or the risk of developing these disorders even when there is no effective mode of treatment (Taeusch, Ballard, Gleason, & Avery 171).
In my opinion, I believe new advancement in technology comes with its share of let down and this should not be considered a failure of the technology. Thus, it is essential that the newborn screening technology be implemented in the health facilities as it has proven to be an effective mode of detecting genetic disorders in children. In this process, the weaknesses that come with its implementation should be addressed as time goes by.
Most importantly, the critiques of this technology should shift their focus from criticizing the short comings of this technology to the improvement of the same short comings. It is evident that technology brings with it more advantages than disadvantages; thus, it is essential to embrace technology and at the same time addressing its let downs. I here by believe that newborn screening is a forward step towards the implementation of technology in the detection of genetic disorders in children. Hence, it should be advanced to enable it detect more genetic disorders, but, at the same time, its deficiencies should be addressed.
Conclusion
There is no technology that will ever be introduced without short comings. Thus, the controversies that surround the implementation of different technologies should be constructed in a manner that builds the technology other than breaking it apart. Newborn screening introduces the concept of detection of more diseases and should thus be supported more and advanced appropriately. It is noteworthy that the preamble of this technology in the medical field made the diagnosis of the genetic disorders easy and accurate. Thus, discovery of technology is aimed at introducing new modes of performing duties basing on competence, efficiency and time.
The prologue of the new born screening expertise in the medical field should be received positively. The current criticism should be directed at the measures to be taken to advance the product and not its abolishment. Most importantly, it is not logical to do away with a proposal that improves the service only because of deficiencies that can be addressed. The field of medicine has got many experts with sound knowledge to effectively structure the implementation of newborn screening technology. Thus, they should come in and offer their support in addressing all the mentioned controversies that exist about this technology.
Works Cited
Andrews, Lori. Assessing genetic risks: implications for health and social policy. Washington. National Academic Press, 1994. Print.
Bowden, Vicky. & Greenberg, Cindy. Pediatric Nursing Procedures. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2007. Print.
Glidden, Laraine. International Review of Research in Mental Retardation, Volume 36. Oxford: Elsevier Inc, 2008. Print.
Hopson, Krista. Newborn screening: new technology revives old controversy. Michigan. University of Michigan. 2007. Web.
Jenkins, Jean. & Lea, Dale. Nursing care in the genomic era: a case-based approach. London: Ones & Bartlett Learning, 2005. Print.
Lam, Stephen & Pang, Calvin. Neonatal and Perinatal Screening: The Asian Pacific Perspective. Hongkong: Chinese University Press, 1997. Print.
Orshan, Susan. Maternity, newborn, and women’s health nursing: comprehensive care across the lifespan. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2008. Print.
Sharpe, Neil. & Carter, Ronald. Genetic testing: care, consent, and liability. John Wiley and Sons. 2006. Print.
Taeusch, William, Ballard, Roberta, Gleason, Christine & Avery Mary. Avery’s diseases of the newborn. Philadelphia. Elsevier Health Sciences. 2005. Print.
Wallace, Robert. Wallace/Maxcy-Rosenau-Last public health and preventive medicine. McGraw-Hill Professional. 2008. Print.
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.