This Case Is Based On Ideas And Discussions With University ✓ Solved

Uv0024this Case Is Based On Ideas And Discussions With University

Evaluate the ethical and managerial considerations involved in the case of Danville Airlines and their pilot, David Reiger, who has tested positive for the Huntington’s disease gene. Consider issues such as genetic privacy, discrimination, safety, and the airline's responsibilities. Based on these factors, develop a comprehensive recommendation for how the airline should proceed, balancing individual rights with safety and business interests.

Sample Paper For Above instruction

The case of Danville Airlines and pilot David Reiger presents a complex intersection of ethics, safety, and business considerations rooted in genetic testing and discrimination. As the airline contemplates its response, it must navigate the delicate balance between protecting its passengers and employees’ rights while maintaining operational safety and corporate integrity. An analysis of the various facets of this dilemma reveals that the company’s ultimate decision should prioritize safety but also respect individual rights, especially considering the severe implications of Huntington’s disease and the ethical principles involved.

The primary ethical concern in this case revolves around genetic privacy and discrimination. Reiger’s genetic information was obtained without his consent during routine testing, which raises questions about respect for individual privacy rights and informed consent. Ethical guidelines, such as those outlined by the American Society of Human Genetics, emphasize that genetic information is sensitive and should be protected with strict confidentiality and obtained only through informed consent (Kass, 2000). The airline’s action infringes on Reiger’s rights to privacy, particularly because genetic data is deeply personal and revealing of future health risks rather than current impairments.

In addition, there is a significant concern about the potential for genetic discrimination. As the literature on genetic discrimination highlights, individuals testing positive for disease-associated genes may face employment discrimination, insurance denials, or social stigmatization (Joly et al., 2010). The case reflects this dilemma: if Reiger is allowed to fly, he might develop symptoms affecting his performance or safety; if grounded, he faces possible discrimination and stigmatization. Federal laws such as the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) of 2008 provide some protections against employment and health insurance discrimination but have limitations, especially concerning safety-sensitive jobs like airline pilots (Rothstein, 2010).

From a safety perspective, pilots pose an inherent risk if their health deteriorates unexpectedly during flight. Huntington’s disease, characterized by progressive neurological decline, could impair a pilot’s motor skills, coordination, and judgment, especially as symptoms develop. The FAA’s regulations require physical and medical assessments for pilots, and any indication of health deterioration justifies grounding for safety reasons (FAA, 2021). Reiger’s recent physical exam clearance does not account for the potential progression of unidentified symptoms, making his continued flying potentially risky, not only for passengers but also for flight crew.

Furthermore, the airline’s operational and financial context influences its decision making. Post-9/11, airlines faced increased scrutiny, safety regulations, and financial pressures. Insurance costs would likely spike if a pilot with a severe genetic predisposition for a neurological disorder remained active, increasing overhead costs. Insurance companies and safety regulators tend to advocate precaution when health risks are involved, especially in safety-critical roles (Anderson & Baumann, 2012). While safety is paramount, the airline must also consider the reputational damage and legal repercussions of discrimination claims or safety accidents.

Given these considerations, the ethics of mandatory or voluntary genetic testing must be weighed against the rights to privacy and non-discrimination. The airline, in compliance with existing laws and ethical standards, should establish a transparent and fair policy. This policy might include providing voluntary genetic testing, with full informed consent, and ensuring confidentiality. If a pilot tests positive for a gene associated with Huntington’s disease, a thorough, case-by-case medical evaluation should be mandated, considering the current health status, the stage of potential symptom development, and the safety risks involved.

In practice, a reasonable approach would be to implement periodic health assessments aligned with FAA regulations and to use medical evaluations to determine fitness for duty rather than solely relying on genetic markers. This aligns with the principles of ethical medical practice and respects individual rights while prioritizing safety. If the evaluation indicates a high risk of symptom development that could impair flying ability, the airline should ethically and legally ground the pilot, providing support and counseling throughout the process.

In conclusion, the airline’s decision should be guided by a commitment to safety, adherence to legal obligations, and respect for individual rights. It should involve transparent policies, voluntary testing with informed consent, and rigorous medical assessments. This approach balances the ethical imperatives of privacy and non-discrimination with the critical need to ensure airline safety and public trust. The case exemplifies the complex ethical considerations raised by advances in genetics, emphasizing that technological capabilities must be matched with ethical responsibility in organizational policies.

References

• Anderson, L. M., & Baumann, D. T. (2012). Safety and legal considerations in airline employment policies. Journal of Aviation Management, 6(2), 45–58.
• FAA. (2021). Pilot medical certification standards. Federal Aviation Administration.
• Joly, Y., Fezeau, S., & Chausson, N. (2010). Protecting genetic information: Policy implications for employment and insurance. Journal of Law and the Biosciences, 137–149.
• Kass, N. (2000). Genetic Privacy: Ethical and Policy Issues. The Hastings Center Report, 30(4), 21–25.
• Rothstein, M. A. (2010). The intersection of law, ethics, and genetics. Genetics in Medicine, 12(4), 220–225.
• Silvers, A., & Stein, M. A. (2002). An equality paradigm for preventing genetic discrimination. Vanderbilt Law Review, 55(5), 1139–1171.