An expansive literature on genetic discrimination exists. See Gostin, L., “Genetic Discrimination: The Use of Genetically Based Diagnostic and Prognostic Tests by Employers and Insurers,” American Journal of Law & Medicine, XII (1991): 109–44; Smith, G.P. Burns, T.J., “Genetic Determinism or Genetic Discrimination,” Journal of Contemporary Health Law & Policy, 11 (1994): 23–61; Epstein, R.A., “The Legal Regulation of Genetic Discrimination: Old Responses to New Technology,” Boston University Law Review 74 (1994): At 1–23; and Rothstein, M.A., “Discrimination Based on Genetic Information,” Jurimetrics, 33 (1992): 13–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gostin, L.O., “Health Information Privacy,” Cornell Law Review, 80 (1995): 451–528.Google Scholar

See, for example, Annas, G.J. Glantz, L.H. Roche, P.A., The Genetic Privacy Act and Commentary (Boston: Boston University School of Public Health, 1995); Annas, G.J., “Privacy Rules for DNA Databanks: Protecting Coded ‘Future Diaries’,” JAMA, 270 (1993): 2346–50; Kobrin, J.A., “Comment: Medical Privacy Issue: Confidentiality of Genetic Information,” UCLA Law Review, 30 (1983): 1283–315; Powers, M., “Privacy and the Control of Genetic Information,” in Frankel, M.S. Teich, A.S., eds., The Genetic Frontier: Ethics, Law and Policy (Washington, D.C.: American Association for the Advancement of Science Press, 1994): 77–100; and Burk, D.L., “DNA Identification Testing: Assessing the Threat to Privacy,” University of Toledo Law Review, 24 (1992): 87–102.Google Scholar

Office of Technology Assessment, Protecting Privacy in Computerized Medical Information (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, OTA-TCT-576, 1993); General Accounting Office, Automated Medical Records: Leadership Needed to Expedite Standards Development (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, GAO/IMTEC-93-1, 1993); Task Force on Privacy, Department of Health and Human Services, Health Records: Social Needs and Personal Privacy: Conference Proceedings (Washington, D.C.: DHHS, 1993); and Final Report of the Task Force on the Privacy of Private-Sector Health Records, Department of Health and Human Services (Washington, D.C.: DHHS, Sept. 1995).Google Scholar

Institute of Medicine, Donaldson, M.S. Lohr, K.N., eds., Health Data in the Information Age: Use, Disclosure, and Privacy (Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences, 1994).Google Scholar

Gostin, L.O. et al., “Privacy and Security of Personal Information in a New Health Care System,” JAMA, 270 (1993): 2487–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rowley, P.T., “Genetic Screening: Marvel or Menace?,” Science, 225 (1984): 138–44.Google Scholar

Wilfond, B.S. Nolan, K., “National Policy Development for the Clinical Application of Genetic Diagnostic Techniques: Lessons from Cystic Fibrosis,” JAMA, 270 (1993): 2948–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Savitsky, K. et al., “A Single Ataxia Telangiectasia Gene with a Product Similar to PI-3 Knase,” Science, 268 (1995): 1749–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Olivos-Glander, I.M. et al., “The Oculocerebrorenal Syndrome Gene Product is a 105kd Protein Localized to the Golgi Complex,” American Journal of Human Genetics, 57 (1995): 817–23.Google Scholar

Goldstein, A.M. et al., “Increased Risk of Pancreatic Cancer in Melanoma-Prone Kindreds with p16 ^INK4 Mutations,” N. Engl. J. Med., 333 (1995): 970–74.Google Scholar

Struewing, J.P. et al., “The Carrier Frequency of the BRCA1 185delAG Mutation is Approximately 1 Percent in Ashkenazi Jewish Individuals,” Nature Genetics, 11 (1995): 198–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kolata, G., “Tests to Assess Risks for Cancer Raising Questions,” New York Times, Mar. 27, 1995, at A1; and Tanouye, E., “Gene Testing for Cancer to be Widely Available”, Raising Thorny Questions, Wall Street Journal, Dec. 14, 1995, at B1.Google Scholar

Andrews, L.B. Jaeger, A.S., “The Human Genome Initiative and the Impact of Genetic Testing and Screening Technologies: Confidentiality of Genetic Information in the Workplace,” American Journal of Law & Medicine, XVII (1991): 75–108; Orentlicher, D., “Genetic Screening by Employers,” JAMA, 263 (1990): 1105, 1108; Canter, E.F., “Employment Discrimination Implications of Genetic Screening in the Workplace Under Title VII and the Rehabilitation Act,” American Journal of Law & Medicine, 10 (1984): 323–47; Brokaw, K., “Genetic Screening in the Workplace and Employers' Liability,” Columbia Journal of Law & Social Problems, 23 (1990): 317–46; and Schultz, E.E., “If You Use Firm's Counselors, Remember Your Secrets Could Be Used Against You,” Wall Street Journal, May 26, 1994, at 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gostin, , supra note 1.Google Scholar

Report on the Task Force on Genetic Information and Insurance, Genetic Information and Health Insurance (NIH-DOE Working Group on Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications of Human Genome Research, May 10, 1993); Murray, T.H., “Genetics and the Moral Mission of Health Insurance,” Hastings Center Report, 22, no. 6 (1992): 12–17; and O'Hara, S., “The Use of Genetic Testing in the Health Insurance Industry: The Creation of a ‘Biological Underclass’,” Southwestern University Law Review, 22 (1993): 1211–28.Google Scholar

Ezzell, C., “Panel Oks DNA Fingerprints in Court Cases,” Science News, 141 (1992): At 261; and Kolata, G., “Chief Says Panel Backs Courts' Use of a Genetic Test,” New York Times, Apr. 15, 1992, at A1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Suter, S.M., “Whose Genes Are These Anyway? Familial Conflicts Over Access to Genetic Information,” Michigan Law Review, 91 (1993): 1854–908.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Leary, W.E., “A Search for Lincoln's DNA,” New York Times, Feb. 10, 1991, at 1.Google Scholar

H.R. 5612, Cong. 101, Sess. 2 (Sept. 13, 1990).Google Scholar

Gostin, , supra note 2.Google Scholar

Brown, D., “Individual ‘Genetic Privacy’ Seen as Threatened; Officials Say Explosion of Scientific Knowledge Could Lead to Misuse of Information,” Washington Post, Oct. 20, 1991, at A6 (quoting J.D. Watson as saying: “The idea that there will be a huge data bank of genetic information on millions of people is repulsive.”).Google Scholar

Clayton, E.W. et al., “Informed Consent for Genetic Research on Stored Tissue Samples,” JAMA, 274 (1995): 1786–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Reilly, P.R., letter, “DNA Banking,” American Journal of Human Genetics, 51 (1992): At 32–33.Google Scholar

Deputy Secretary of Defense Memorandum No. 47803 (Dec. 16, 1991).Google Scholar

Shapiro, E.D. Weinberg, M.L., “DNA Data Banking: The Dangerous Erosion of Privacy,” Cleveland State Law Review, 38 (1990): 455–86 (many states authorize the banking of DNA usually for convicted sex offenders; the FBI is establishing a computerized DNA data bank); Burk, , supra note 3; and Note, “The Advent of DNA Databanks: Implications for Information Privacy,” American Journal of Law & Medicine, XVI (1990): 381–98.Google Scholar

Suter, , supra note 19.Google Scholar

McEwen, J.E. Reilly, P.R., “Stored Guthrie Cards as DNA ‘Banks’,” American Journal of Human Genetics, 55 (1994): 196–200.Google Scholar

Department of Health and Human Services, National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey III (1994).Google Scholar

Nelkin, D. Lindee, S., The DNA Mystique: The Gene as a Cultural Icon (New York: W.H. Freeman, 1995); Nelkin, D., “The Double-Edged Helix,” New York Times, Feb. 4, 1994, at A23; and Weiss, R., “Are We More Than the Sum of Our Genes?,” Washington Post Health, Oct. 3, 1995, at 10.Google Scholar

Fost, N., “The Cystic Fibrosis Gene: Medical and Social Implication for Heterozygote Detection,” JAMA, 263 (1990): 2777–83.Google Scholar

Reilly, P., “Rights, Privacy, and Genetic Screening,” Yale Journal of Biology & Medicine, 64 (1991): 43–45.Google Scholar

Wivel, N.A. Walters, L., “Germ-Line Gene Modification and Disease Prevention: Some Medical and Ethical Perspectives,” Science, 262 (1993): 533–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hilts, P.J., “Gene Transfers Offer New Hope for Interspecies Organ Transplants,” New York Times, Oct. 19, 1993, at A1.Google Scholar

Struewing, et al., supra note 13.Google Scholar

Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Genetic Testing and Privacy (Toronto: Ontario Premier's Commission, 1992); and Shapiro, Weinberg, , supra note 28. Later, I show why enacting genetic-specific privacy statutes, instead of a general statute applicable to all health information, may be problematic. This is not intended to undercut the observation that genomic data present distinct privacy concerns. Rather, I argue, that robust privacy legislation should cover all kinds of health information without creating “super” privacy protection for any particular kind of data, whether it be genomic data or data relating to STDs, HIV infection, mental health, or substance abuse.Google Scholar

Annas, supra note 3.Google Scholar

King, R.T. Jr., “Soon, a Chip Will Test Blood for Diseases,” Wall Street Journal, Oct. 25, 1994, at B1.Google Scholar

Kreimer, S.F., “Sunlight, Secrets, and Scarlet Letters: The Tension Between Privacy and Disclosure in Constitutional Law,” University Pennsylvania Law Review, 140 (1991): 1–147; Turkington, R.C., “Legacy of the Warren and Brandeis Article: The Emerging Unencumbered Constitutional Right to Informational Privacy,” Northern Illinois University Law Review, 10 (1990): 479–520; and Chlapowski, F.S., Note, “The Constitutional Protection of Informational Privacy,” Boston University Law Review, 71 (1991): 133–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Webster v. Reproductive Health Servs., 492 U.S. 490 (1989); Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986); and Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693 (1976).Google Scholar

Whalen v. Roe, 429 U.S. 589 (1977). See Nixon v. Administrator of General Servs., 433 U.S. 425 (1977).Google Scholar

429 U.S. at 605.Google Scholar

Rasmussen v. South Fla. Blood Serv., Inc., 500 So. 2d 533 (Fla. 1987).Google Scholar

U.S. v. Westinghouse Electric Corp., 638 F.2d 570 (3d Cir. 1980).Google Scholar

Gostin, , supra note 2, at 499–508.Google Scholar

Workgroup for Electronic Data Interchange, Obstacles to EDI in the Current Health Care Infrastructure (Washington, D.C.: DHHS, 1992): App. 4, at iii.Google Scholar

H.R. 5612, Cong. 101, Sess. 2, 101 (Sept. 13, 1990) (“a bill to safeguard individual privacy of genetic information”). The bill provides individuals with certain safeguards against the invasion of personal genetic privacy by requiring agencies, inter alia, to permit individuals to determine what personal records are collected and stored; to prevent personal records from being used or disclosed with consent; to gain access to personal records; and to ensure accuracy of records.Google Scholar

Hereditary Disorders Act, Cal. Health & Safety Code § 151 (West Ann. 1990) (test results and personal information from the hereditary disorders programs are considered confidential medical records and can only be released with informed consent); Fla. Stat. Ann. § 760.40 (West Supp. 1994) (genomic data are the exclusive property of the person tested, are confidential, and may not be disclosed without the person's consent; genomic data collected for purposes of criminal prosecution, determination of paternity, and from persons convicted of certain offenses are exempted from confidentiality requirement); Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 22, § 42 (Supp. 1995) (personal medical information obtained in state's public health activities, including but not limited to genetic information, is confidential and not open to public inspection); Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 76, § 15B (West 1982) (data from state voluntary screening program for sickle cell, or other genetically linked diseases determined by the commissioner, are confidential); Mo. Ann. Stat. § 191.323 (Vernon Supp. 1996) (authorizing the health department to maintain a central registry for genomic information, and providing that identifying information is confidential); Oh. Rev. Code Ann. tit. XXXVII, § 3729.46 (Baldwin 1994) (health department and contractors must keep personal information, including genetic information, confidential); Tenn. Code Ann. § 68-5-504 (1992) (requiring health department to develop statewide genetic and metabolic screening programs including PKU and hypothyroidism, and requiring that the program follow state laws governing confidentiality); Va. Code § 32.1-69 (1950) (records maintained as part of genetic screening program are confidential except with informed consent); Ga. Code Ann. § 33-54-3 (Supp. 1995) (use of genomic information is authorized in criminal investigations and prosecutions, and scientific research); Kan. Stat. Ann. § 65-1, 106 (1994) (sickle cell testing information is confidential); 1995 Or. Laws 680 (requires informed consent for the procurement of genetic information, and provides that an individual's genetic information is the property of the individual); 1995 La. Acts 11299.6; and Pa. S. 1774 (1993).Google Scholar

In Pennsylvania, see Genetic Information Confidentiality Act, Pa. S. 1774 (1993). In New York, see A. 5796, N.Y. Reg. Sess. (1995–96); S. 4293, N.Y. Reg. Sess. (1995); and S. 3118, N.Y. Reg. Sess. (1995).Google Scholar

Cal. Health & Safety Code § 151 (West Ann. 1990); Colo. Rev. Stat. 10-3-1104.7 (1994); Fla. Stat. Ann. § 760.40 (West Supp. 1994); Ga. Code Ann. § 33-54-3 (Supp. 1995); Kan. Stat. Ann. § 65-1, 106 (1994) (sickle cell only); 1995 Minn. Laws 251; 1995 N.H. Laws 101; and 1995 Or. Laws 680.Google Scholar

For example, Colo. Rev. Stat. 10-3-1104.7 (1994); Ga. Code Ann. § 33-54-3 (Supp. 1995); and Cal. Ins. Code § 10148 (West 1994).Google Scholar

For example, Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 19-1-121, 25-1-122.5 (1995).Google Scholar

Nev. Rev. Stat. 396.525 (1991).Google Scholar

National Society of Genetic Counselors, Resolutions (rev. Nov. 1994).Google Scholar

Annas, Glantz, Roche, , supra note 3.Google Scholar

Gostin, , supra note 2, at 513–27. Other work on public health information privacy is currently being done under the auspices of the CDC and the Carter Presidential Center.Google Scholar

The Medical Records Confidentiality Act, S. 1360, Cong. 104, Sess. 1 (1995), is pending. This statute would create a set of fair information practices for a wide range of health information.Google Scholar

In deriving these standards, the author appreciates the work of Professor Robert Weir of the National Human Genome Project and Joan Porter of the Office of Protection from Research Risks of the National Institutes of Health.Google Scholar