The critical issue is about the discovery of Huntington disease genes in David Reiger, a 42 years old veteran pilot with Danville Airlines in Milwaukee, but which has not developed into a disease. Reiger is furious that the company tested him genetically, without his consent. The airline is concerned that if he becomes symptomatic, he could become physically and mentally handicapped thereby exposing their clients and their business to great danger (Mead & Wicks, 2004) The text identifies a couple of issues. First, Reiger was not informed of the genetic tests he underwent, given that he submitted to a routine annual drug and alcohol examination. Second, the release of Reiger’s genetic results (not related to the examination reasons) obtained during routine medical screening to his employer without prior notification and consent was unethical. Equally, the possibility of discrimination against Reiger based upon health reasons/medical history is high. Also, clients/public could be exposed to risks, which could occur if results of Reiger’s medical screenings are not holistically considered. Consequentialism, universalism, rights, justice and fairness are relevant ethical models that apply to the case in hand (Mead & Wicks, 2004 Overall, the key fact in the text, according to Mead & Wicks, 2004, is the discovery of a potential genetic disorder (Huntington’s disease) in David Reiger, a seasoned pilot with Danville Airlines in Milwaukee ensuing from a routine blood test for alcohol and drug use. Also, medical science cannot determine when the disease will begin to manifest in Reiger-like many other carriers of the infected genes (Mead & Wicks, 2004) A key factor also is that HD disease results into major physical and mental deterioration in victims, which presents a big risk in having Rriger fly as a pilot. Testing Reiger without his consent was a violation of his right even as HIPPA states “genetic information shall not be considered a preexisting condition in the absence of a diagnosis of the actual condition” (Mead & Wicks, 2004). Minor facts include the following: Reiger is subjected to emotional and psychological torture by the discovery of HD genes in him, a condition that resulted in his father’s death; Danville Airline may have to pay more on insurance to cover Reiger, HIPPA does not stop insurance companies from inflating the cost of coverage for people who do not have the actual medical conditions, and off course; there is no clarification as to whether Danville Airline is willing to retain and redeploy Reiger to other operational units-should he become symptomatic (Mead & Wicks, 2004). HIPPA 1996 and the Federal Aviation Administration provided codes that guide the stakeholders in this case (Mead & Wicks, 2004). The main stakeholders in the case are David Reiger and his family, Danville Airlines, the medical examination agency, Danville Airline customers, and to a lesser extent; FAA and HIPPA. No one has suffered any harm so far as expressed in the text. Specifically, any concerned party has received no benefits. The airline has exercised its right to ensure the health of their pilots by subjecting Reiger to his annual physical examination. David Reiger has also exercised his constitutional right of threatening to sue the airline, should they make work related decisions based upon the a potential health condition for which he is not symptomatic (Mead & Wicks, 2004) Three distinct alternatives to Reiger not been informed for his genetic examination are: (a) Danville Airline should apologize to Reiger for a non-consensual medical examination he was subjected to; (b) Reiger’s consent should be sought before any future probing medical examinations are carried out on him; (c) Reiger should be allowed to fly until he becomes symptomatic at which time he should be re-deployed to a less sensitive operation or department. Rendering apologies to Reiger by Danville Airline will boost his morale and reassure his self-belonging in the organization. This will present the airline as an organization that cares about the welfare of its employees. Seeking Reiger’s consent for such medical examination in the future will protect his privacy and offer him the option of consenting to the medical examination or otherwise. It will also protect the airline from legal actions. Retaining Reiger as a pilot will guarantee his income and make him not to be discriminated against the provisions of HIPPA (Mead & Wicks, 2004). It will also protect the airline from numerous legal actions that may ensue from Reiger’s disengagement. There are no visible effects on less important stakeholders. Yes, the ethical models addressed earlier on were satisfied. I recommend that Reiger be allowed to fly until he becomes symptomatic. He should however be medically examined regularly to ascertained his flight worthiness. Also, Reiger should not be subjected to any discrimination based of his health information, as this will contradict HIPPA’s provision. I also recommend Reiger to be sincere to himself, put public safety above self and accept to step down as a pilot, should he become symptomatic in the future.
Refence
Mead, J., & Wicks, A.C. (2004). Danville Airlines. In S.D. Baler (Ed.), BUAD 625:Organizationalleadership and ethics (pp.53-57, 69-75). Virginia: Darden Business Publishing.