Skip to main content
Log in

Distinguishing genetic from nongenetic medical tests: Some implications for antidiscrimination legislation

  • Published:
Science and Engineering Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Genetic discrimination is becoming an increasingly important problem in the United States. Information acquired from genetic tests has been used by insurance companies to reject applications for insurance policies and to refuse payment for the treatment of illnesses. Numerous states and the United States Congress have passed or are considering passage of laws that would forbid such use of genetic information by health insurance companies. Here we argue that much of this legislation is severely flawed because of the difficulty in distinguishing genetic from nongenetic tests. In addition, barring the use by insurance companies of a genetic test but not a nongenetic test (conceivably for the same multifactorial disease) raises issues of fairness in health insurance. These arguments suggest that ultimately the problems arising from genetic discrimination cannot be solved by narrowly focused legislation but only by a modification of the entire health care system.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Billings, P.R., Kohn, M.A., deCuevas, M., Beckwith, J., Alper, J.S. & Natowicz, M.R. (1992) Discrimination as a consequence of genetic testing. American Journal of Human Genetics 50: 476–482.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Geller, L.N., Alper, J.S., Billings, P.R., Barash, C.I., Beckwith, J. & Natowicz, M.R. (1996) Individual, family and societal dimensions of genetic discrimination: a case study analysis. Science and Engineering Ethics 2: 71–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Yesley, M.S. (1997) Genetic privacy, discrimination, and social policy: Challenges and dilemmas. Microbial & Comparative Genomics 2: 19–35.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Andrews, L.B., Fullarton, J.E., Holtzman, N.A., Motulsky, A.G. (1994) Assessing Genetic Risks: Implications for Health and Social Policy. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C..

    Google Scholar 

  5. Task Force on Genetic Information and Insurance & NIH/DOE Working Group on Ethical Legal and Social Implications of Human Genome Research (1993) Genetic Information and Health Insurance. NIH/DOE, Bethesda.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Wolf, S. (1995) Beyond ‘genetic discrimination’: Toward the broader harm of geneticism. Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 23: 345–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Beckwith, J. (1993) A historical view of social responsibility in genetics, BioScience 43, #5: 327–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Meschede, D., Eigel, A., Horst, J. & Nieschlag, E. (1993) Compound heterozygosity for the deltaF508 and F508C cystic fibrosis transmembrane regulator (CFTR) mutations in a patient with congenital bilateral aplase of the vas deferens. American Journal of Human Genetics 53: 292–293.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Rubinsztein, D.C., Leggo, J., Coles, R., et al. (1996) Phenotypic characterization of individuals with 30–40 CAG repeats in the Huntington Disease (HD) gene reveals HD cases with 36 repeats and apparently normal elderly individuals with 36–39 repeats. American Journal of Human Genetics 59: 16–22.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Task force on Genetic Testing of the NIH-DOE Working Group on Ethical Legal and Social Implications of the Human Genome Project (1997) Interim Principles.

  11. Nelkin, D. & Lindee, M.S. (1995) The DNA Mystique: The Gene as a Cultural Icon, W.H. Freeman, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Couch, F.J., DeShano, M.L., Blackwood, M.A., Calzone, K., Stopfer, J., Campeau, L., Ganguly, A., Rebbeck, T. & Weber, B.L., (1997) BRCA1 mutations in women attending clinics that evaluate the risk of breast cancer. New England Journal of Medicine 336: 1409–1415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Alper, J.S., Geller, L.N., Barash, C.I., Billings, P.R., Laden, V. & Natowicz, M.R. (1994) Genetic discrimination and screening for hemochromatosis. Journal of Public Health Policy 12: 345–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (1995) Compliance Manual, Volume 2, EEOC Order 915.002, Section 902.

  15. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (1991) Letter, dated November 22, 1991 from Acting Director of Communications and Legislative Affairs, EEOC, Robert Blumenthal, to Representative Bob Wise, Chairman, House Subcommittee on Government Information, Justice and Agriculture, Washington, D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (1991) Letter dated August 2, 1991, from Elizabeth M. Thornton, Deputy Legal Counsel, EEOC, to Paul Berg and Sheldon Wolff, Co-Chairmen of the NIH-DOE Joint Subcommittee on the Human Genome.

  17. Preston, J. (1996) Trenton votes to put strict limits on use of gene tests by insurers. The New York Times, June 18: A1,B6.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Alper, J.S., Beckwith, J. Distinguishing genetic from nongenetic medical tests: Some implications for antidiscrimination legislation. SCI ENG ETHICS 4, 141–150 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-998-0044-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-998-0044-8

Keywords

Navigation