- Email: [email protected]
DNA and immigration: the ethical ramifications
HEALTH AND HUMAN RIGHTS
Long-term detention under harsh, prison-like conditions is the antithesis of the conditions of support and stability that trauma survivors need in order to achieve psychosocial stability.”
1
2
3
Sally Hargreaves C/o The Lancet
Burnett A, Peel M. The health of survivors of torture and organised violence. BMJ 2001; 322: 606–09. Physicians for Human Rights. Examining asylum seekers: a health professional’s guide to medical and psychological evaluations of torture. Boston: PHR, 2001. Silove D, Steel Z, McGorry P, et al. The impact of torture on post-traumatic stress symptoms in war-affected Tamil refugees and immigrants. Compr Psychiatry 2002; 43: 49–55.
DNA and immigration: the ethical ramifications lthough family reunification accounts for the bulk of legal immigration, global economic slowdowns have caused governments to narrow the range of people that qualify for family reunification. At the same time, governments are requiring more extensive documentation to prove applicants’ biological relationships to their sponsors. Since western style identity documentation is uncommon in numerous developing countries, many immigrant-receiving nations, including Canada, Australia, the USA, Finland, Denmark, Sweden, Italy, the UK, and New Zealand, have turned to DNA technology to provide proof of family relationships. The number of individuals who undergo DNA testing fluctuates from a small number of cases each year in some counties, to more than a thousand in one major immigrant receiving country. Family reunification is vital to the welfare of immigrants. Experience has shown that family units have a better chance of successfully integrating into a new country. Unwanted separation from close family members creates an emotional burden for everyone involved, and children separated from their parents or customary caregivers are particularly vulnerable to longterm physical, intellectual, and psychological problems.1 Separated refugee or displaced children are at an especially high risk for abusive situations such as sexual violence and exploitation. Although DNA testing can assist immigrants and refugees by facilitating family reunification in the absence of required documentation, there exist a myriad of ethical concerns that require due consideration. First, families are not always biologically related. In western societies, babies born within the context of a relationship are automatically accepted as the children of that relationship. However these same countries require a positive DNA result in order to make determinations with respect to family reunification. Not surprisingly, DNA test results can be a
A
794
shock to some families that receive them. In one case, for example, a child from Kenya was proven not to be the biological offspring of either his father or his mother after DNA testing. Apparently he was reclaimed mistakenly by his mother after several years’ separation as a result of civil war. Further, there is no universally recognised definition of family. In many cultures “family” incorporates both a wider range of biological relatives and members that are related socially rather than biologically. Indeed, 58% of Somalis given DNA testing by Danish authorities between January, 1997, and September, 1998, received a negative result. In response to these findings, Somali community leaders argued that “the concept of family is very different in [Somali] culture, and many Somalis are not aware of the Danish concept of who is a family member and thereby entitled to family reunification”.2 DNA testing can disrupt the family unit, particularly affecting the welfare of the children involved (panel). Requests for DNA testing can also be discriminatory as certain ethnic groups are asked to submit to DNA testing more often than are others. Concerns have been raised that officials appear to more readily reject documents provided by people from poorer countries. In fact, the Canadian Council for Refugees claims that applicants at some Canadian visa posts (particularly those in Bangladesh and Africa) are often asked to undergo DNA testing. Not everyone is able to provide DNA test results on demand. For one, the tests are extremely expensive and many applicants cannot afford to pay. Moreover, there may be religious constraints preventing applicants from agreeing to submit to DNA testing. In one Canadian case, the defendant, a refugee from the Democratic Republic of Congo, refused a request for DNA testing because it contravened his religious beliefs as a Jehovah’s Witness. DNA technology has the potential to be a useful tool in making decisions
Case study In January 2002, the appeal division of the Canadian Immigration and Refugee Board rejected a Somali father’s petition to be reunited with his 14-year-old son. After having immigrated to Canada, the man applied 3 years previously to be reunified with his three children, born during his marriage to his now deceased first wife. He was told that there was insufficient evidence to establish his parentage and he was invited to submit DNA samples. The tests indicated that the youngest child was not the man’s biological son. As a result, the two older children are now living in Canada with their father whereas the youngest remains in Nairobi, Kenya. The father’s representative is currently applying for judicial review of the Board’s decision.
about family reunification in cases that lack documentary evidence to establish a relationship. However, for DNA testing to help rather than hinder the family reunification process, it is essential that the proper safeguards be in place. Because countries make their own determinations regarding family reunification, strict national guidelines are essential to ensure that it is used in an even-handed and non-discriminatory manner. Above all, DNA testing should be reserved as an absolute last resort when no other evidence is available and the applicant would otherwise have to be rejected. Immigration authorities need to be aware of the intrusiveness of the test and its potential to disrupt a family unit when deciding whether to recommend biological testing. If testing is required, it is imperative that adequate counselling be provided to deal with the repercussions of the results. Due consideration should also be given to the high cost of DNA tests and the fact that they delay the reunification process. J Taitz, *J E M Weekers, D T Mosca University of Toronto, Faculty of Law, Ontario, Canada; *Migration Health Services, International Organization for Migration, PO Box 71, CH-1211 Geneva 19, Switzerland; and Migration Health Services, International Organization for Migration, Nairobi, Kenya (e-mail: [email protected]) 1
2
UNHCR. Refugee children: guidelines on protection and care. Geneva: UNHCR, 1994. United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. DNA test for Somalis found more than half cases false (AsylNord No 6). Geneva: UNHCR, 1998.
THE LANCET • Vol 359 • March 2, 2002 • www.thelancet.com
For personal use. Only reproduce with permission from The Lancet Publishing Group.
Long-term detention under harsh, prison-like conditions is the antithesis of the conditions of support and stability that trauma survivors need in order to achieve psychosocial stability.”
1
2
3
Sally Hargreaves C/o The Lancet
Burnett A, Peel M. The health of survivors of torture and organised violence. BMJ 2001; 322: 606–09. Physicians for Human Rights. Examining asylum seekers: a health professional’s guide to medical and psychological evaluations of torture. Boston: PHR, 2001. Silove D, Steel Z, McGorry P, et al. The impact of torture on post-traumatic stress symptoms in war-affected Tamil refugees and immigrants. Compr Psychiatry 2002; 43: 49–55.
DNA and immigration: the ethical ramifications lthough family reunification accounts for the bulk of legal immigration, global economic slowdowns have caused governments to narrow the range of people that qualify for family reunification. At the same time, governments are requiring more extensive documentation to prove applicants’ biological relationships to their sponsors. Since western style identity documentation is uncommon in numerous developing countries, many immigrant-receiving nations, including Canada, Australia, the USA, Finland, Denmark, Sweden, Italy, the UK, and New Zealand, have turned to DNA technology to provide proof of family relationships. The number of individuals who undergo DNA testing fluctuates from a small number of cases each year in some counties, to more than a thousand in one major immigrant receiving country. Family reunification is vital to the welfare of immigrants. Experience has shown that family units have a better chance of successfully integrating into a new country. Unwanted separation from close family members creates an emotional burden for everyone involved, and children separated from their parents or customary caregivers are particularly vulnerable to longterm physical, intellectual, and psychological problems.1 Separated refugee or displaced children are at an especially high risk for abusive situations such as sexual violence and exploitation. Although DNA testing can assist immigrants and refugees by facilitating family reunification in the absence of required documentation, there exist a myriad of ethical concerns that require due consideration. First, families are not always biologically related. In western societies, babies born within the context of a relationship are automatically accepted as the children of that relationship. However these same countries require a positive DNA result in order to make determinations with respect to family reunification. Not surprisingly, DNA test results can be a
A
794
shock to some families that receive them. In one case, for example, a child from Kenya was proven not to be the biological offspring of either his father or his mother after DNA testing. Apparently he was reclaimed mistakenly by his mother after several years’ separation as a result of civil war. Further, there is no universally recognised definition of family. In many cultures “family” incorporates both a wider range of biological relatives and members that are related socially rather than biologically. Indeed, 58% of Somalis given DNA testing by Danish authorities between January, 1997, and September, 1998, received a negative result. In response to these findings, Somali community leaders argued that “the concept of family is very different in [Somali] culture, and many Somalis are not aware of the Danish concept of who is a family member and thereby entitled to family reunification”.2 DNA testing can disrupt the family unit, particularly affecting the welfare of the children involved (panel). Requests for DNA testing can also be discriminatory as certain ethnic groups are asked to submit to DNA testing more often than are others. Concerns have been raised that officials appear to more readily reject documents provided by people from poorer countries. In fact, the Canadian Council for Refugees claims that applicants at some Canadian visa posts (particularly those in Bangladesh and Africa) are often asked to undergo DNA testing. Not everyone is able to provide DNA test results on demand. For one, the tests are extremely expensive and many applicants cannot afford to pay. Moreover, there may be religious constraints preventing applicants from agreeing to submit to DNA testing. In one Canadian case, the defendant, a refugee from the Democratic Republic of Congo, refused a request for DNA testing because it contravened his religious beliefs as a Jehovah’s Witness. DNA technology has the potential to be a useful tool in making decisions
Case study In January 2002, the appeal division of the Canadian Immigration and Refugee Board rejected a Somali father’s petition to be reunited with his 14-year-old son. After having immigrated to Canada, the man applied 3 years previously to be reunified with his three children, born during his marriage to his now deceased first wife. He was told that there was insufficient evidence to establish his parentage and he was invited to submit DNA samples. The tests indicated that the youngest child was not the man’s biological son. As a result, the two older children are now living in Canada with their father whereas the youngest remains in Nairobi, Kenya. The father’s representative is currently applying for judicial review of the Board’s decision.
about family reunification in cases that lack documentary evidence to establish a relationship. However, for DNA testing to help rather than hinder the family reunification process, it is essential that the proper safeguards be in place. Because countries make their own determinations regarding family reunification, strict national guidelines are essential to ensure that it is used in an even-handed and non-discriminatory manner. Above all, DNA testing should be reserved as an absolute last resort when no other evidence is available and the applicant would otherwise have to be rejected. Immigration authorities need to be aware of the intrusiveness of the test and its potential to disrupt a family unit when deciding whether to recommend biological testing. If testing is required, it is imperative that adequate counselling be provided to deal with the repercussions of the results. Due consideration should also be given to the high cost of DNA tests and the fact that they delay the reunification process. J Taitz, *J E M Weekers, D T Mosca University of Toronto, Faculty of Law, Ontario, Canada; *Migration Health Services, International Organization for Migration, PO Box 71, CH-1211 Geneva 19, Switzerland; and Migration Health Services, International Organization for Migration, Nairobi, Kenya (e-mail: [email protected]) 1
2
UNHCR. Refugee children: guidelines on protection and care. Geneva: UNHCR, 1994. United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. DNA test for Somalis found more than half cases false (AsylNord No 6). Geneva: UNHCR, 1998.
THE LANCET • Vol 359 • March 2, 2002 • www.thelancet.com
For personal use. Only reproduce with permission from The Lancet Publishing Group.