A story with a positive agenda

 

All human beings have their own agendas.  Journalists are human, too, and their articles always display their agendas - whether this is consciously or unconsciously intended.  

Take an article published in The Townsville Bulletin on Tuesday, March 5, 2013, (p. 5) headed "Genetic test for babies is due". 

Written by Sue Dunlevy and Jane Armistead, this piece begins with the following paragraph: "Parents will be able to learn all their newborn baby's potential health risks from a genomic test conducted at birth within the next five years". Apart from the implication from the headline that the genetic test is awaited keenly, there is little so far to indicate in what direction the writers of the article are going to take us.

The agenda of this article begins to become evident, however, in the quoted views of an expectant Townsville first-time mother (26) who says she would welcome the chance to take advantage of genomic testing for her child.  The agenda is further developed via the reported prediction by "genetic expert" for the Royal College of Pathologists, Professor Graeme Suthers, that the sequencing of the six billion neucleoids of individual human beings will be available for under $1,000 within three to five years.

Further expansion of the agenda occurs in the statement that, with early awareness of gene mutations, patients will be not only fore-warned of their susceptibilities but will also be advised of appropriate preventative health measures to deal with them.  The article also cites the view of Garvan Institute chief, Professor John Mattick, that this information could be advantageously attached to individual e-health records - presumably for efficient access by other health professionals dealing with individual patients.

The important thing to note here is that, although there is mention of some concern on the part of the expectant mother that early knowledge could make parents unnecessarily anxious about their children's future, this article appears to be largely supportive of the merits of genomic testing.  This is evident in the highlighting of the advantages of this remarkable new technology: the ability to foretell potential future problems, the relatively low financial cost entailed in doing so, and the associated benefits for future health service provision via efficient preventative strategies and the inclusion of genomic information on e-health records.

This article does not, however, mention the counter arguments which have been raised by ethicists and others including the great risk of unwarranted invasion of confidential, sensitive, patient information by a vast array of people including: anyone using e-health records; insurance companies, prospective employers, and "enemies" who have a vested interest in knowing about possible future scenarios; and patients themselves who may experience very mixed feelings about facing negative information about a sometimes distant future.  These, and other, arguments provide a basis for an alternative, and equally legitimate, story.