Non-consensual DNA Paternity Testing Essay

The issue of whether or not it is acceptable for someone’s child or an organisation to carry out DNA paternity exclusion testing, without the consent of either the child’s mother or their suspected father is a very complicated issue and there are many arguments both for and against it. Both the rights of the individual to control what happens to their own DNA and the rights of children to know the identity of their father must be taken into consideration, as well as other ethical, social, political and economical issues.

Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is an individual’s “genetic blueprint”. (VIFM 1999) The structure and function of every part of the body, such as height or eye colour, is controlled by DNA. The DNA of each individual is unique except in the case of identical twins. A person’s DNA is made up of 46 chromosomes and the DNA of each individual is unique except in the case of identical twins. This is because 23 of the chromosomes are inherited from the mother, and the other half are inherited from the father. (Genetic Technologies 1999) Each chromosome is made up of thousands of genes. It is genes that control the production of proteins and it is proteins that “control the functions and characteristics of organisms.” (Beeh 1999) A gene that has more than one allele (form) is known as polymorphic. (Genetic Technologies 1999) At each locus, a person inherits one allele from their mother and one from their father. The different alleles are what cause variation in things such as height or eye colour. (Gribbin 2002 p66)

For DNA paternity exclusion testing, only the DNA of the individual and their suspected father is needed, although the mother’s DNA increases the test’s accuracy. (Beta Paternity Testing Laboratory 2002) (VIFM 1999) Suitable samples for DNA paternity testing are blood, mouth swabs that collect cheek cells, or hair roots. (Genetic Technologies 1999) When samples are received, DNA is isolated from cells so that the genetic profiles can be examined. At a certain locus two molecular tags are attached at the ends of a target sequence of DNA and an enzyme, polymerase, duplicates the sequence between the two tags, in what is known as a polymerase chain reaction (PCR). The DNA fragments can then be separated by size and allele variation, resulting in patterns that can be compared between individuals. (Genetic Technologies 1999) The DNA of the mother allows the allele that has been inherited from her at particular locus to be determined, so the other allele must have been inherited from the father. If the DNA profile of the suspected father definitely shows that the other allele cannot have been inherited from them, there is a 100% certainty that the man is not the biological father of the child. (Beta Paternity Testing Laboratory 2002) If a man is not excluded as the child of the father than the probability that he is, is over 99%. (Beta Paternity Testing Laboratory 2002) (VIFM 1999) It is impossible to be 100% certain that the man is the biological father of the child as it is possible that another man’s DNA could match the child’s. (Beta Paternity Testing Laboratory 2002) (VIFM 1999) To increase the test’s accuracy, genetic profiles are compared at a number of loci. (VIFM 1999)

Taking a sample of someone’s DNA without their permission for a DNA paternity test clearly raises some ethical issues. Although DNA profiling is not in itself a bad thing, the information revealed could be used to the disadvantage of the person whose DNA it is. (Beilby 2002) (Gribbin 2002 p54) DNA profiling can be considered to be “a massive invasion of personal privacy” because of the information revealed. (Sautrer 2002) As well as being used in exclusion paternity testing, it can reveal whether or not an individual will get, or is susceptible to certain genetic diseases such as Huntington’s disease. (Beilby 2002) It would clearly be unethical to disclose this information to anyone but the person concerned, as if they were known to be susceptible to a disease, it could damage their job prospects or make it more difficult to take out life insurance. (Beilby 2002) It can even be considered unethical to reveal susceptibility to certain diseases to the individual involved, as they may simply not wish to know. Although information of this type is unlikely to be used by the company, the potential for misuse of information is still a concern when considering the ethics of non-consensual DNA testing. However, it may also be argued that it is unethical to prevent someone from finding out who their father is, as this is something that everyone should have a right to know. It is better for the happiness and well being of the child to know who their father is, rather than just knowing that “it could be one of two people” or simply having no idea at all. (Reed 2000) Because of this, it may be acceptable for a DNA paternity exclusion test to be done without the permission of the parents for the sake of the child, although this would obviously vary depending on the exact circumstances of the case.

Paternity exclusion testing without the consent of all the individuals involved may have many social implications. One study in the United Kingdom found that around one in five paternity tests found that the child was not the biological child of the suspected father. (Mudge 2000) If non-consensual DNA testing is undertaken and the child is found not to be the biological offspring of the suspected father, then it is potentially very damaging to relations within the family concerned, especially if the mother or both the parents have decided that it is better if the family acts as if the man is the father of the child and have been doing so throughout the child’s life. “Fatherhood [is] not necessarily biological, it [is] social too”, (Mudge 2000) and so the acceptability of doing a paternity test without consent is very questionable. There is also a risk of results being mixed up which could clearly cause a lot of unnecessary stress to family relations. However, depending on how well accredited and accountable the company that does the paternity test is, this risk may be minimal. There may also be social benefits to non-consensual DNA testing, as children may be able to discover the identity of their father, whereas they wouldn’t have been able to otherwise, and this could prevent them suffering the trauma of never knowing who their father is.

There are also political issues that need to be taken into account when addressing the question of whether or not DNA exclusion paternity testing without the consent of all parties involved is acceptable. Currently there is no legislation to prevent someone obtaining a sample of someone else’s DNA and having it tested without their knowledge, as taking someone’s DNA is not legally regarded as theft. (Ryan 2002) It can be however, argued that it probably ought to be legally regarded as theft because of the importance of the information that DNA profiling can reveal about an individual. (Kmietowicz 2002) A child could not obtain a copy of their parent’s police records without permission, so surely the same should be applied to genetic information. Also, due to the easy accessibility of paternity testing services and regulating the conduct of overseas companies being difficult, an inquiry conducted in Australia has recommended that genetic testing without consent should become a criminal offence. (Ryan 2002)

Paternity testing is a growing business world wide. (For example Identigen, a multinational paternity testing company, went from 650 tests in 1995 to over10 000 tests in 1999. (Gwynne 1999) The growth in this industry means that it has the potential to be good for the economy because of the large amounts of money to be made from it. One Australian company that runs exclusion paternity tests, Beta Paternity, charges $275 for a paternity test. (Beta Paternity Testing Laboratory 2002) The growth in the industry means that there is a potential for job creation, which would also be of benefit to the economy. An obvious downside to the huge amounts of money to be made from paternity testing is that it has the potential to make companies less ethical about their practices and less inclined to be concerned about whether or not permission has been obtained from all the people involved. It may also lessen support from companies that run DNA paternity tests for putting legislation in place to prevent tests from being done without the permission of all the people involved, as overseas facilities are easily accessible over the internet. This means that the non-consensual tests could still take place, but any potential money to be made from the tests would end up overseas rather than in Australia. (Ryan 2002)

There are obviously valid arguments both for and against non-consensual DNA paternity exclusion testing, the most important point clearly being whether the right of the individual to control what happens to their DNA outweighs the right of a child to know who their father is. Despite the fact that there is currently no legislation against it, and although children should have the right to know the identity of their father, non-consensual DNA paternity testing by an individual or company should be considered unacceptable because of the enormous significance of the information revealed by DNA profiling, and the potential for the information to be used in an unethical manner.