Discrimination.
As a childfree man, this issue is personally moot, but as an observer of cultural institutions, it's fascinating.
Mommy's little secret
The notion of a woman carrying the child of someone other than her partner is older than the Christmas story itself. No geneticist believes non-paternity to be purely the product of modern immorality; they have been tripping over the infidelities of earlier generations for decades. Cheryl Shuman, director of genetic counselling at the Hospital for Sick Children, said that 15 years ago, when genetic tests were less powerful, researchers had to draw blood from a child, his or her parents and both sets of grandparents. "Sometimes we'd get a call from the grandmother, and she'd say, 'Listen, my son, or my daughter, doesn't know that their father is not their real father. . . .' " In the interests of maintaining family peace, Ms. Shuman said, the tests would be dismissed as "uninformative."
Well ain't that an Orwellian choice of words...
If the case involves an expectant mother, Ms. Shuman explained, the hospital's legal obligation is clear: The developing baby is considered part of the mother and the results of the tests therefore belong to her.
After birth, the course of action is less clear, she said, but lawyers advise that the child is to be considered the patient, whose needs trump those of the parents. Since telling the father could trigger a breakup and leave the child without proper support, the hospital keeps the secret. Sometimes it can be a whopper.
So the legal profession admittedly believes they have an obligation to assist women in committing financial fraud*.
In one case, a father who tested negative for a gene that his sick child had inherited wrongly believes himself to be both a carrier of a genetic disorder and the child's natural father. Ms. Shuman said counsellors have never told him otherwise, even after his marriage broke up. But recently, he contacted the hospital again to say he has a new partner and wants to come in for further testing. He assumes that any child produced in his new relationship also may be at risk.
Telling him there is no risk would reveal the truth about his first child. Going ahead with the test denies him the truth about his own DNA. Prof. Dickens suggests testing the new partner. If she turns out to be a non-carrier, there is no need of further discussion. But Ms. Shuman said that also may leave counsellors with some unwanted "moral residue."
"He hasn't come back in yet," she added, "but we may have to reveal the results . . . It all gets messier than you might think. Welcome to my ethically charged world."
Remember this, men. In the eyes of the legal establishment, and the medical establishment, the right of a woman to deceive you trumps your right to know your own genetics. She will have every professional assistance in deceiving you, even after your relationship is over. And if circumstances should force them to give you this information, they will feel ethically tormented at the prospect of giving you the good news that you don't actually have a genetic condition.
Amazing.
* Ironically, the courts have held that men who don't challenge paternity immediately are still responsible for child support. So revealing this information would not actually put the child at risk of losing a legal right to financial support. The justice system-Orwell again-will ensure continuation of the financial fraud in any case. So what the doctors are really enabling is the personal and emotional fraud. In some ways, that's almost worse.