User:Ahige/sandbox

Other Edits
I critiqued my article in a paragraph on the talk page of my sandbox, but it disappeared and I have no idea where it went. The article I critiqued was on the topic of genetic testing, which is what I wrote my edit on. I talked about the neutrality of the article, which I felt was adequate for Wikipedia standards. I also checked some of the references to test their validity and test the accuracy of the information. Finally, I looked at any information that was missing, inaccurate, or could further be added, which is what I based to write my article on.

I also was able to add a reference and edit to the page on ethics of circumcision to understand navigating citations on Wikipedia.

Potential Articles to Edit
Genetic Testing: I believe there can be an article added on the history of genetic testing. Also, I think more can be added in regards to the ethics of genetic testing with view points from both sides of the argument. Another point I would look at would be all the diseases listed in that article that can be tested for.

Beneficence (ethics): I can add additional material from The Belmont Report and how beneficence is one of the main ethical principles. Also, the connection to nonmaleficence would be important to note in this article. It didn't look like there was anything under the talk page on the topic.

Predictive Testing: There is a good definition for this idea under the article, but I would include more about the ethical side of it and opinions from both sides of the argument. Also, possibly adding more examples would be better to understand the topic for readers.

=Genetic Testing Ethics=

Genetic Discrimination
A possible consequence of undergoing genetic testing includes discrimination from medical insurance companies or employers. Due to the nature of individuals having no control over their genetic makeup, it is unethical and unfair for them to be discriminated against due to a certain condition. Ethical debate began over the possibility of insurance companies raising premiums, decreasing benefits, or refusing coverage for individuals who undergo predictive genetic testing (reference). While the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 did not protect patient's from genetic discrimination, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) was passed in 2009 to protect patient's from discrimination. Under GINA it is illegal to discriminate individuals who undergo genetic testing in the area of medical insurance and when employers hire individuals with genetic conditions. There are instances when GINA does not apply, including in businesses with less than 15 people and other forms of insurance besides medical (reference). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahige (talk • contribs) 17:16, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Individual Privacy and Confidentiality
Ethical controversy and considerations exist over the issue of individuals sharing genetic testing results. Oftentimes, if an individual has the chance to acquire a genetic condition, there are also risks for their family members. One position on this ethical dilemma believes the individual should share their health information if it has the chance to impact their family members, including parents, children, siblings, and extended family members. On the other hand, the argument is for individual privacy and confidentiality, with the patient being the ultimate decider on whether to disclose genetic information or not. With individuals who prefer not to share their genetic testing results, there is a chance for psychological harm and attempts at persuasion from healthcare providers. With implementing the ethical principles of respect for persons and beneficence, the patient can make informed decisions without undue harm or persuasion from physicians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahige (talk • contribs) 22:35, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Reflection
Critiquing articles: During the article evaluation on Wikipedia, I learned more on how Wikipedia articles are structured and the main points to look out for when reading a page. I also learned how to read the concept to understand if it made sense or if there were key points missing. It was also helpful to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article moving forward to make my edit to ensure I didn't leave any key points out of my post. To approach this article critique, I first read through the entire article once through. Then, I broke down each section based on the questions listed for the article evaluation on the Wikipedia timeline. I tried to focus on the neutrality of the article to ensure there no biases or strong positions toward one topic. I also looked at the content of the article to see if there was any key information missing from the article or if there was any unorganized, weak sections. Looking at the genetic testing article, I thought there could be more information added on the history of genetic testing. I also thought more could be added in regards to the ethics of genetic testing with viewpoints from both sides of the argument. Ultimately, I decided to edit the paragraph on ethics of genetic testing to add information on the privacy and confidentiality of testing on the individual.

Summarizing your contributions: The first article I wrote to add to the topic of genetic testing was the idea of genetic discrimination. I discussed the impact that genetic discrimination can have on individuals as they may be unable to get certain jobs or receive insurance due to discrimination about a certain condition. Also, in this section, I talked about the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA). GINA was implemented in order to prevent discrimination that was not considered when HIPAA passed. When I looked back at the Wikipedia article on genetic testing, I noticed that some of this information was scattered throughout, and I didn't want to add this information to be repetitive. When I went back to redo my contribution, I focused more on the ethics of genetic testing on the individual level. Specifically, I talked about the privacy and confidentiality that contributes to the individual's choice on whether to disclose their health information relating to genetic testing. There are two sides to this ethical dilemma, one focusing on the privacy of the individual and the other side arguing for the disclosure of genetic testing information to family members that have the ability to be affected by the results of the testing. In the end, this was the article I added to the genetic testing Wikipedia article, but I think it was deleted from the page shortly after with no explanation.

Peer Review: I reviewed Milaina's article on smoking cessation and left feedback on her talk page. She added information on passive smoking and the harmful effect of second hand smoke on individuals. She discussed how secondhand smoking can be a risk factor for young adults beginning to smoke. She also discussed potential health outcomes from passive smoking and how education can begin to help cessation of smoking. On the other hand, there were no peers from our class that peer reviewed my article.

Feedback: I did not receive feedback from other Wikipedia edits. My article was deleted from the genetic testing page, but with no feedback on why. If someone had given me feedback on why it was deleted, I could have worked to fix and make the necessary changes to repost it.

Wikipedia generally: By contributing to Wikipedia, I definitely understand better how these articles are created and the ability of pretty much anyone to add to the pages. While Wikipedia has rules on what and how to add to an article, I can imagine that many people do not follow these guidelines very closely. From this point of view, I can understand why Wikipedia is not a reliable source for many serious academic research projects. This Wikipedia article does not compare to any other assignment I have done for a class. While I can see the similarities in researching a topic and finding adequate references to create an article, it was also a different format by completing this assignment through Wikipedia. I am glad there were multiple training programs because I would have been even more lost had I not completed them. I definitely found this program slightly difficult to use, especially in the beginning. There were many different rules to learn, and I still am confused on many topics. For example, my article critique disappeared from my sandbox, which I have no idea what happened or where it went. Also, my final article was deleted from the Genetic testing Wikipedia page, but there was not explanation as to why. There were many issues similar to this that came up that I found difficult to deal with because I had no idea why they happened. The timeline page was also slightly confusing to me when working on this project. I felt as though there were multiple boxes from the various weeks that we never talked about. For me, I think this made the timeline schedule slightly confusing because I never knew if all the boxes were required to complete or not. Wikipedia can be used to increase the knowledge of various medical topics as long as accurate references and neutral viewpoints are used. Many times it is difficult to understand where the information comes from, and people will believe that what they're reading is 100% accurate. If Wikipedia can begin to change the way people view and write these articles, we can start to insert accurate information on important medical topics to give the correct information to the general public.