The most remarkable thing about the U.S. Supreme Court's 1998 decision in Bragdon v. Abbott was that it was necessary at all. Seventeen years into the epidemic of the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome, the Supreme Court, by a mere 5-4 majority, finally affirmed what most public health officials, health providers, and lawyers working with people with human immunodeficiency virus believed all along: that individuals with HIV infection are entitled to the protections of antidiscrimination law, and that health care providers must respond (...) to a patient's infection based on reason and science, not fear and prejudice. For individuals with HIV, and for those with other disabilities, the Court's ruling was a critical victory. But the very fact that the issues had to be decided by the Supreme Court and that only five justices joined the majority, shows the fragility of legal rights pertaining to HIV as well as the wide gulf between the perspectives of public health and those of public law. (shrink)

We will analyse the representations and conceptualisation of genetics and genetic information in bioethical discourse. Genetics and genetic information is widely believed to be revolutionizing medicine and is sometimes misconceived as having a high predictive value compared to traditional diagnostics. We will attempt to present the inherent limitations of genetic information within its health care context. We␣will also argue against the exceptional treatment of genetic information that seems to govern bioethical reflection and regulatory approaches. And finally, we will make the (...) claim that geneticization should be seen as a more serious threat to our privacy, autonomy and freedom, than genetic discrimination. (shrink)

The advent of population-specific genomic research has prompted calls for invention of informed consent protocols that would treat entire social groups as research subjects as well as endow such groups with authority as agents of consent. Critics of such an unconventional ethical norm of group consent fear the rhetorical effects of approaching social groups with offers to participate in dialogues about informed consent. Addressing a specific population as the collective subject of genomic research, on this logic, adds currency to the (...) potentially dangerous public opinion that such a group is bound by genetic ties. The paper considers the problem of group and individual identity within the rhetorical dynamics of the discourse and politics of consent. (shrink)