Slashdot Mirror
Pink Slip In Your Genes
An AC pointed us to this story about genetic tests: An article in Scientific American discusses the growing evidence that employers hire and fire based on genetic tests. It highlights the story of a woman whose life was probably saved by a simple genetic test. Unfortunately, the same test also cost her her job and health insurance.
It's not as though a national health care system needs to worry about underwriting risk or worry about maximizing corporate profits by any means possible including denial of claims or discriminating against your genes.
I'm a free marketeer, who recognizes the conflict going on here.. we need national guarantees against genetic discrimination. Would such a law be enforceable, or do we need to move to a national healthcare system all together?
If those woman's genes say she'll be a cost risk to her employer, why should she be allowed to keep that secret? The public (including her employer) has a right to all information.
My point, which you apparently didn't get, is that employers already make decisions about your suitability for jobs based on physical appearance: the crudest form of genetic screening possible. Real scientific genetic screening isn't going to change how employers act, it just gives them some real data to work with rather than bad opinions and misguided prejudices. This can only be better for the employer and the employee. I certainly wouldn't want to work in a high-stress situation if it turned out I had a genetic tendency to die quickly from heart failure in high-stress situations!
Because rejecting an unfit and uncoordinated slob applying for an aerobics instructor position is a form of discrimination. And I'm sure it's a form that nobody here would disagree with.
The 3 examples I gave all show that physical characteristics are sometimes important to the job. It doesn't take much intelligence to imagine that there are MANY jobs where genetic screening can help employers make better choices. Would you want a pilot who suffers from epilepsy? How about a childcare worker with a tendency to launch into violent fits of rage? Or a trained athelete with heart problems? How about a male masseur applying for a position in a "womens only" gym?
Discrimination isn't terrible. It can be used in terrible ways (to discriminate based on skin colour where skin colour is irrelevant) but it's also possible to discriminate in positive ways.
Do you have any idea how many companies have already done this? You wouldn't believe how many "U.S." companies have "Offices" in the Cayman Islands, etc, etc.
Well murder is illegal too, but this has yet to stop anyone from killing!!!
they can't fire you for drug abuse, unless it affects your work efficiency; in which case you probably won't get fired right away, but are offered a chance to go into rehab.
Sorry, but I don't understand why people are advocating that a person's employer be liable for covering their medical expenses, due to a stroke of bad luck. It's your health at stake, and your responsibility. How dare you pass off this responsibility to your employer?
If anything, the insurance companies should be liable for the risk, and they should be the ones negotiating the policies with the employers and their employees. Insurance companies are in the business of selling risk, and can do so. A typical employer is not, and should not be liable for high costs of your medical bills.
It sickens me to hear of people who would simply pass their problems off to their employers, and demand that THEY be the ones responsible for your bad health.
Folks, take responsibility for your own well-being. If an employer does not want to hire you based on your high risk of undue expense, that's their right. Take it up with the insurance companies, who are really the ones dicating terms..
I'll just add them to my boycott list, right after amazon. (I'd rather spend my money at barnes and noble..)
Stupid things like that don't happen when the State pays for health-care, and since State health-care doesn't have to turn a profit and is universal, it is much cheaper because there are no checks to see if one is insured for a given procedure, and no profit to shareholders.
Typically, Canada's universal health care costs 60% of what it costs to americans per capita, and EVERYBODY is covered.
--
Game over, 2000!
It helps the one particular employer who avoid hiring someone with a higher risk of medical claims, but how does that really help anything? What if all employers are so efficient? Then an otherwise good worker is unemployed, on the dole, not contributing, but still costing somebody.
The solution is that health care should *NOT* be provided by employers. (I don't believe it should be provided by the government either, I would like to have a public marketplace where individuals buy insurance, and insurance only covers real risks, not routine care, but that's a whole other debate of course.)
Need glasses? Can't be a pilot. Oh well, there are hundreds/thousands of other great job types available.
How'd you like to be branded as a risk, and not be able to get any job doing anything?
It's not an issue of the wrong person for the job; the scenario is that a person can be marked the wrong person for *any* job.
That's funny, I hadn't even thought of "ass-fucking" until you brought it up. You might want to take that chip off your shoulder before it falls off and hurts someone.
From what I have read, the main problem in Africa is heterosexual sexual promiscuity, not IV drug use or unsafe homosexual sex.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
I am not sure that I agree with this point of view. Although someone might have a gene for ailement x, there is no garantee that they will get it. Furthermore discrimenation of any sort is still discrimination. What would you do if you happened to have this faulty gene, and for all medical science, or your employer knows, with the combination of another faulty gene, the effect could cancel themselves out, though since we don't know we shouldn't be making hash choices.
The truth is nobody is genetically perfect and given certain conditions this genetic differences could actually prove positive and creating a genetic underclass would actually make society a worse place to live - remember this is exactly what Hitler wanted to do with his Erian race.
Employers should only be allowed to choose their employees based on their ability to do the job, not how they will be in 50 years, especially since most people don't stay in the same job for more than 3 years in many cases.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
The problem here isn't privacy. According to the article, the woman's life was probably saved by the test. This suggests that making genetic information widely available can be a Good Thing.
So the problem here is not protecting one's privacy; the problem is allowing everyone to have medical treatment should they need it. It is in an insurance company's interest to have as much information about a prospective customer as possible, in order to best estimate how much that person is likely to cost them.
Now, we as a society have decided that people are entitled to certain goodies just by virtue of existing: in the case of an invasion, everyone is protected by the military. If you lose your job, even though your own fault, you can collect unemployment insurance that all of us pay for.
A national health care plan, if properly done, should be just an extension of this idea: everyone is entitled to some minimum level of health care, just by virtue of being alive. This could be simply an uber-insurance plan, in which everyone automatically gets some minimum level of coverage (if you break your leg, the uber-plan pays for your cast), and everyone pays for it, through taxes.
This should not, as some have feared, put existing insurance companies out of business: they would now be in the business of providing more and better treatment than the uber-plan covers (e.g., crutches, pain-killers, etc.). They should then, of course, charge correspondingly less, which should balance out the higher taxes.
One important side effect of this system would be that it would no longer be in the insurer's interest to turn a person away completely, since everyone would be minimally covered by the common plan.
The discrimination issue would then become, "Bob is likely to get $DISEASE. If I hire Bob, he will be out sick a lot and cost us productivity." This used to be an argument against hiring women in certain positions (s/$DISEASE/pregnancy/), but people got over it.
We look to private industry for efficiency, and to the government for fairness. In this case, we're looking for fairness.
I was always going to be something someday. And eventually, they're going to find out what that is.
-- Pat Cadigan, "My Brother's Keeper"
It is not even a good reason to deny people a job if they actually get the predisposed disease: even when disabled, people can still be an asset to a company. I don't know if Beethovens deafness was genetical but suppose, he tested positive and someone told him at age 18: no, you can't become a composer because you will become deaf later in life? Same applies to other wonderful people (e.g. Stephen Hawking or even Newton) who contributed to mankind despite illness.
core dumped.
The problem with most Americian's view of the Canadian health care system is the distortion that permiates within the US media. Yes, there are problems but they usually represent less then 1-2% of actual cases out there. Most individuals see their doctor, get treated and be on their way.
I.E. Most of yapping about 4 month waits for heart surgery are complete nonsense. Yes, if you look up the surgical database you might see a wait, but most doctors sign up their patients at the first sign of trouble and then do the tests to determine whether a patient needs surgery, MOST doctors then pull the patients off the DB. The result is a wait of usually 2-3 weeks (depending on the patient condition) and only if it is non-threatening. Whenever a patient's condition listed as an critical, they will get surgery the next day as in any American hospital (assuming they have the insurance).
This is not to say there are instances where people didn't get surgery in time ***BUT*** the VAST majority do. The rate of survival for heart conditions is HIGHER in Canada then the US because there is no profitable benefit for hospitals to cram patients into surgery (for insurance $$$).
Problems have arisen because PEOPLE VOTE IN GOVERNMENTS WITH POLICAL MANDATES TO LESSEN THE MONIES GOING TOWARDS HEALTHCARE. Canadians spending only 2/3 the monies the US does on healthcare for 100% converage of all citizians. Don't blame the system when you specifically order a reduction in service.
Overall, I will take the Canadian healthcare system over the US -- I don't like the idea that fellow citizians should lose their livelihood or simply die because they (or their employers) don't have the monies to pay for healthcare. Within Government healthcare systems their is no tie-in between your job and your families health; only your job and your ability to do it!!! To force a person off the job because of the health of their children seems very very disturbing, something that is taken for granted in the US but raises the eyebrows of most other first world countries. I really love the US, enjoy its culture, cities, people (who are among the friendliest in the world) but regarding this issue -- it is a complete mystery for the rest of us to understand how you live with it.
Just my $0.02
<flame>Apparently you have failed to understand the mechanisms of ethical thought and action, so let me explain one of them to you as simply as possible.
Evolutionary process != moral imperitive.
Natural selection is a cruel, nasty and destructive process. Under no circumstances should we model our society after such a process, as it makes people cruel, nasty and destructive.
Now that you understand this, go grow a fscking heart.</flame>
Meldroc, Waster of Electrons
Anti-business? It's only anti-business for those businesses who are anti-employee. Yes, it might make fewer businesses relocate into this county, but dammit, it's the right thing to do. I'm usually one who favors limitation of government powers, particularly in matters of commerce, but firing somebody because they have a disease that a) hasn't manifested itself and b) doesn't affect their job performance in any form or fashion is absolutely reprehensible. I'd go so far as to call that "evil".
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
Now I don't want to belittle your situation, it is understandable that a military force would have very high standards for the physical condition of its troops (employees). Since your description of this condition doesn't seem to imply that it impedes your life in any way, and your .sig indicates that you didn't like the air force very much, it seems to me like you are well-advised to take your money and run. Have you been denied health insurance based on this condition? In my opinion, that would be an actionable offense on the part of the insurance companies (read...a bad and evil thing).
But what the hell do I know, eh? : )
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
Huh? I musta missed that part of the Constitution where businesses were entitled to pick the best and healthiest people to be their employees.
'Scuse me while I trip Godwin's Law here, but you might check into Himmler's eugenics experiments during the second world war. That was the most advanced research ever dedicated to creating your master race...the better to serve the corporate beast.
In other words, your idea is absolutely sickening.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
The problem is that the results of this screening process don't tell you anything more about a person's fitness for a job than does the color of their underwear.
Read my lips. Genotype DOES NOT guarantee fitness!
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
That is what insurance IS. If you only stood to gain out of insurance what you paid into it, you'd be much better off investing in a CD.
I don't know whether insurance is "fair" or not. I do know that it's the only way a person could possibly get through a major medical catastrophe and remain financially solvent.
So, your point is correct. Insurance is not "fair", but it's designed not to be fair. You are purchasing security. If I am able to purchase security, any other person ought to be able to purchase security too. If somebody is not allowed to buy something because of a condition that they are born with, that's (in my non-binding legal opinion) illegal discrimination, just like discrimination based on race would be.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
i'd hate to be fired for wearing a pink slip to work too.
As an employee at a large corporation and also a potential employer I only have one thing to say to this, "huh?" I just don't see this as being a problem. The article uses statements like, "A 1999 survey by the American Management Association found that 30 percent of large and midsize companies sought some form of genetic information about their employees, and 7 percent used that information in awarding promotions and hiring. " I'm wondering what they consider to be "some form of genetic information"? I would imagine it would be questions about race, or gender.
To be honest, based on the evidence presented, I really don't see this as an issue. One lady believes she was discriminated against because of her genetic condition. This may be true but a single instance is not really a cause for concern. The evidence pointing towards genetic discrimination is anecdotal and unconvincing. How would an employer benefit from discriminating against a person based on some predilection for genetic disorder? What possible financial benefit would an employer see by denying himself the opportunity to hire a potentially productive individual? The only possible explanation could be employee turnover. Granted, employee death is one cause of turnover, but I would imagine it is far less likely to occur, even in the face of a possible genetic disorder, then other causes of turnover.
"...they have a list a mile long of people to take your place."
I would recommend not taking employment as a ditch digger. Are you familiar with the concept of supply and demand? It's a fairly simple capitalist concept, it works like this: The more things are in demand, the greater the cost. The less things are in supply, the greater the cost. People with skillsets that are in small supply and great demand have an easy time of it when looking for a job. It is the responsibility of the individual to develop his skills such that they are a salable product in a capitalist environment.
For myself, I could be on the verge of death with some highly communicable disease and still wouldn't have a problem finding employment in today's market.
Can I get an "AMEN"?
Sometimes we forget that corporations and governments only exist to serve people, not the other way around.
Hmmm, I think I just thought up a new sig.
In other words, if it's going to cost $20K/year to keep you alive, it's not going to be worth it for ANY insurance company that isn't charging you at least $22K/year (need some profit in there after bookkeeping costs).
I don't see much of a real answer to this stastical delima than making Health Insurance coverage mandatory (i.e. nationalizing it).
--
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
The problem is with profit-based health insurance schemes, where you're only insurable as long as your insurer is getting more money out of you than they're paying for your health care. There is effectively no way to give the average person coverage against chronic-style illness under the US model of health insurance.
--
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
The key to loosing weight (for most people) is to increase your exercise on a constant food intake. Try parking the car a mile from work and walking the rest of the way each day. As you get used to it, increase the distance, until you're jogging 5 miles a day. Do not change your diet (neither increase or decrease).
--
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
Rather like my truism:
Treat someone like an enemy for long enough and -- sooner or later -- they'll get the hint.
--
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
Perhaps a more valuable solution would be to mandate the grandfathering of employer health insurance -- If an employee leaves, then {s,}he gets to take the insurance with {him,her}. Only a small increase in premiums would be allowed -- to cover the increased paperwork caused by a single participant. Similarly, insurance companies shouldn't be able to jack up the premiums of a company much beyond the average increase in industry costs. In either case, the company would still be stuck with the sick customer.
The idea would be to force insurance companies to actually amortize the cost of acutely and chronically sick customers into their larger base, rather than forcing them out through massive fee increases.
--
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Simple, reduced health care costs.
This may be a bit of a tangent, but when did people start expecting the companies they work for to care for their health? (By extension, when did people start expecting the government they live under to do the same?) If I smoke and drink and eat fatty foods (or engage in other dangerous activities, regardless of genetic predisposition), why does it fall on my employer to keep me from dying at 40? Sure, they wouldn't want to lose a valuable employee, but I would think that my own life is a little more valuable to me than it is to my employers.
A poster in another thread was saying their father got fired because they had a medical condition that cost over a million dollars to treat a year. Now does it really cost that much to treat, or does it cost that much because they can bill a company for it instead of a person? I wonder how strong a hold HMOs would have on poorly managed health care if they couldn't stick large companies for big bills.
Nope. This is perfectly legal under the law. It will take some big high profile cases to laws in place too. I have known this would be problem when I heard the wanted to map the human gnome back in the early 90s. We still have some problems with discrimination based on sex, religion, and race. Why wouldn't this be a problem.
I wouldn't be surprised if some "diligent entrepreneur" started compiling databases of people diagnosed with the potential diseases and disorders. They already are doing it with other infornmation of ours. Why not do it with this too. Truth be known. This is just the tip of the iceburg of what could become a very serious problem.
Imagine a new drivers license that has more storage capacity than the current drivers licenses with magnetic strips. They code place all you things you have genetically diagnosed with on that new drivers liscence.
At the next eco-hypocrisy-meeting, count the private jets used to get to the meeting. Should be interesting to see that
Your diagnosis of the problem (employers are gatekeepers for healthcare) is spot on. The problem is your solution. In two words, it sucks.
The history of employee provided health care starts off in WW II when there were wage freezes and other socialist/fascist monkeying with the economy in order to get it into war footing. People couldn't find enough workers and the law prevented them from paying higher wages to bid up what was available (ironically enough, those who were unhealthy enough not to be accepted in the armed forces or the aged). The work around? Offer lavish benefits including health care.
The problem is that people got used to it and it stuck. The thing that keeps it going though is that the tax laws give employers preferential treatment over other health care financing methods such as self-pay.
So what do we have here, govt. interference screws up the medical system by introducing massive third-party pay situations and to nobody's surprise who knows economics, costs spiral out of control.
The fix isn't to go all the way to a socialized system which will kill R&D into new medicine and procedures but to eliminate the original government caused distortions and make healthcare available without employers being involved in any way.
DB
The chinese are doing wonderful work with assymetric warfare... coming soon to a world war near you.
Frankly, the 2nd amendment comes into play here. Not the way people think, with fearless teens fighting back the invading commies (what was that silly movie title?) but the simple statistical fact that if you grind a widely armed mass population down sufficiently, a certain number of them are simply going to commit suicide by randomly shooting some overlords.
They'll get stomped of course, but there goes all that genetic superiority into the meat locker all the same. The hypothetical ubermen would have to ease up to avoid carnage, at least until they can get the populace disarmed...
DB
Let's turn it around. If you were the employer, would you test? As long as the answer is no and there are actual employers who agree with you, they will reap the benefits of hiring the genetically weak who are superior in actual job performance.
I'm setting up my own company and frankly, I wouldn't test legal or not. I won't be doing drug tests either.
OTOH, you don't perform, you don't have a job.
DB
You ask, who's left? The consumer is left. Right now, it is basically acceptable to charge $4 for an aspirin in a hospital. Nobody blinks twice because they, personally, do not perceive themselves as paying for it. Ditto with unnecessary tests & procedures. Take away the third party payer and you kick back into action the awesome power of enlightened self-interest by exposing just how stupid the US tort system is (defensive medicine is much of the cause of medical waste) and the insurance companies will change their behavior when their customer base changes and they become little more than buyers' collectives.
Socialism is "least of all evils" only when you are short-sighted. The long-term destructiveness of the system is on display everywhere east of the old iron curtain. Government has never found a practical, efficient way to ration any economic goods, much less the really important stuff like healthcare. The free market can work, but fascistic corporatism (the current system) doesn't.
DB
I highly suggest that you watch Gattaca if you really feel this way.
The movie demonstrates some of the outgrowths that have a high probability of occurence if we allow genetic testing to predetermine the ability/future of individuals. (This reminds me of a famous learning question. Do poor students do poorly because of genes, or do they do poorly because teachers/educators assume they are poor students and so don't push them as hard?)
Now, of course, genetic testing has it's uses, but it should most definetly not be used for discrimination in all but the most demanding jobs. (And even then, I would have grave reservations about a genetic test determining whether a fully qualified applicant was even able to train for a job.)
Don Armstrong -".naidnE elttiL etah I"
http://www.donarmstrong.com
Laws like this make sense only on the national level.
Hmm... Well lets see I'd sure be out of a job, as based on genetics I matabilize food instead of simply burning up that energy immediately (aka I cannot really lose weight _ever_ starving myself for 2 weeks I loose a whole 1/4 a lb. of weight). & we all know that doctors say being overwight is unhealthy... So therefore I should never get a job because genetically I'm not the 'best and healthiest employee' & so cannot help a comapny have 'increased production and satisfaction by the customer'...
That's a hefty load of horse manure... I have worked several customer service jobs in my life & I know perfectly well I aid a company I work for at least as well as anyone else (in fact more so than many a 'healthy' person)... What you said is compeltely irrational for almost all genetic conditions (only a few rare wasting diseases might severely effect ones ability to do both the things you said). Please think again before posting such drivel...
we are all invisible unless we choose otherwise
I agree we should have laws that prohibit screening job applicants' genes. But why is this stuff even an issue? Your medical status is private unless you're in the military, or taking a job-related drug test.
I don't understand why the person in that story lost her job. Why were the results of that genetic test presented to her employer in the first place? If she just flat out told them, then it's stupidity on her part.
- SEAL
The news article mentions blood tests specificially .. I wonder why they're so specific. This doesn't appear to prohibit your HR department from doing the Gattaca thing and picking up bits of your hair and skin from your keyboard.
I checked the Montgomery County web site and found the press release for the new law, but it didn't mention anything about just banning blood tests. Hmm.
zo.
Banning interracial breeding will _lower_ the number of possible genetic combinations, not increase it. Keep in mind that even in a family of 7, all the kids aren't identical. It's the number of genes in a population, not any sort of purity that matters.
Besides, traditional 'races' are very superficial indicators of a gene pool.
___
It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
--
WorldServe Consulting
I guess you are talking about 'Gattaca' here.
+5? FUNNY? are you all on fucking crack? I bet this post will be moderated down despite the fact i'm including the following: "finger"
Ever seen Gattaca?
A national level law of this sort will cause companies to leave the country.
(ahem)
(Yeah, right, leave the USA! NOT!!!!!)
========================
63,000 bugs in the code, 63,000 bugs,
ya get 1 whacked with a service pack,
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
Authorize a snitch network funded by massive (multimillion dollar per offense) fines levied against the company.
:)
Any HR person, DNA tester, etc., suddenly becomes a potential opportunistic back stabber who can collect mountains of conclusive evidence against a company that is doing secret DNA testing of employees.
When a conviction is secured and the fine levied, also levy fines against the CEO (automatically), the board of directors, and any HR people who directed this testing to happen. Inform *ALL* employment applicants (at the company's expense) so as to enable them to get in on the reward, and to also leave the company wide open for a class action lawsuit (backed up by the conviction, this lawsuit should be open and shut).
The money the snitch gets would probably far exceed what the company would pay them to stay quiet. Worse yet the company has been paying this employee for months and now s/he keeps what they gave them, plus they bag a cut of the fine.
The execs are now always in fear of profiteering snitches and the total annihilation they leave in their wake: a fatal combination of per-applicant fines, automatic Federal prison sentences, class action lawsuits that no one short of God could get them out of (because the criminal proceedings already provided a conviction), and automatic branding of the CEO and Board members as genetic discriminators (via the conviction)...
What you've done is replaced the well water with hydrochloric acid. Corporations won't even THINK about DNA testing. You could get fired just for mentioning DNA testing on the job.
Hell, you could get fired just for LISTENING to someone mentioning DNA testing on the job
========================
63,000 bugs in the code, 63,000 bugs,
ya get 1 whacked with a service pack,
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
are both enemies of freedom.
We need to return to the thriving capitalism that is smaller businesses.
========================
63,000 bugs in the code, 63,000 bugs,
ya get 1 whacked with a service pack,
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
Yes but they still do business in the US. Nobody's gonna go work in the Cayman Islands, a million miles away from civilization.
As long as they try to do business, hire and fire, and sell products in the US, they have to play by our rules. Or else we can revoke their right to hire and sell products here.
Ever heard of Cuba?
========================
63,000 bugs in the code, 63,000 bugs,
ya get 1 whacked with a service pack,
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
think about it this way: if you are having a child soon (which my wife is) they will check for various ailments and genetic diseases like down syndrome and mental retardation. it is fairly common for doctors to question giving birth to a baby that will have severe mental retardation or genetic diseases that will make life difficult for the child.
how long do you think it will take before doctors start questioning giving birth to a baby that will be obese? or short (dwarfism)? or maybe have a learning disability like add? or have poor eyesite?
once the doctors have the power to change the genetic traits of the unborn children, some will use it. they will justify it as giving the child an advantage in life rather than a disadvantage. they will significantly reduce the occurence of genetic diseases in people. they will help many people live longer healthier lives.
but they will be playing God.
Ummm, Jon, aren't you supposed to be dead...? - Otter(3800)
you moron!
social darwinism is about genetics, and has nothing to do with social values taught to children by their parents or friends.
Fucking understand the words you use before you use them, or you will sound like a moron, just like you did in your above post.
If you doubt me, look up the word Eugenics.
shut up you little wanker. It looks like you have the stutter gene
may seem cruel may seem cruel...
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
From a moral and ethical standpoint, you're absolutely correct - it's wrong to discriminate against people on the basis of things like this. But it is not illegal.
Try talking to somebody in the legal department of whatever corporation you work for. The company can discriminate on the basis of anything that they aren't specifically forbidden by law from discriminating on. If the state (or city) you work in doesn't have a law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of (for example) "sexual preference", then your employer can legally fire you for a sexual preference they don't like.
Even in places where there are laws prohibiting discrimination, they can always find a reason to fire you. Everybody makes mistakes. If your manager (or designate) documents every single mistake you make for a year or two, they can make anybody look incompetent enough to fire you on that basis. If you throw in assigning you only unpleasant tasks with high risk for error, you don't have a chance.
With all of that, you still have more protection under the law than your parents or grandparents did. Employers actually have to document a reason for a firing to protect themselves from a lawsuit.
The frightening thing about genetic testing is that there is nothing you can do about it. OK, my XYZ123 gene is defective - I have exactly the same control over this as I have over my race, or whether I was born with the right number of functioning body part in the usual places. On that basis, we need laws specifically to prevent discrimination against genetic defects.
"Bite me, it's fun!" - Crowe T. Robot
I agree with most of your comment, just this little part irks me. I don't see why we should be concerned that a teacher, when told that someone is a "slow learner", ends up teaching them in a way such that they learn slowly. Lemme think of an analogy that would work...ah, here we go.
Say you're teaching one of those "Make your own website!" courses to two groups of people. Nothing fancy, just some course to show people the basics of HTML, how to use bold, italic, header tags, etc. If you're told that group A has learned how to browse the web, send e-mail, and so on already, but that group B has never touched a computer, you'll obviously treat them somewhat differently. With group A, you'd get them to fire up a text editor and start, while with group B you'd take more time, and make sure to show them how to open and quit programs and such.
Even if the newbie group really was computer literate, and what you were told was wrong, they'd still probably sit there and pretend to be interested while you were showing them where the on button is. So yeah, they would learn slower cause of their label, but it's not the teacher's fault, it's just because you as a teacher are adapting to your students. You have to make sure to blame the one giving them the label without justification, not the one who reacts appropriately (although misguidedly) to the label.
So that's my rant for today.
vasi
"Hey, who took the cork off my lunch?" -- W. C. Fields
I think it's just sad that the world would come to this... How come an employer can discriminate against someone who may potentially become ill in the future due to a gene, but they cannot discriminate against someone who is a different color or race due to a gene? A gene is a gene, and discrimination is just plain wrong.
You're nothing; like me.
The Montgomery County Council passed a law?
I'm not familar with the American system, but can County Councils do that in America? I thought they were stopped from doing this after the fiasco of 'blue-book' laws in the 50s and 60s.
(As I say, I'm not familar with the system and I may have it totally wrong.)
But it seems like now two County Councils on the planet have done something for their constituants: Montgomery County Council (the whole genetic test thing)and South-Dublin County Council(the whole Refuse (as in waste) Tax thing- genetic testing is not a big issue in Ireland or Europe). Wow! Elected officals doing something! Unfortunately I live in neither catchement[sp-?].
8)
Concrete analysis...
Wouldn't this be covered under the current laws against discrimination, or are they too specific? How about the laws on unfair dismissal?
Some company is going to get sued over this, I can see it coming. Pity it'll probably take a large class-action suit for it to not get swept under the carpet as to avoid (inter)national attention.
But the second that there is a noisy lawsuit, politicians are going to be all over it like they were concerned about it the entire time.
Something will get done about this, but probably not before quite a few people lose their jobs over it.
Pity.
Dark Nexus
Dark Nexus
"Sanity is calming, but madness is more interesting."
Ever seen Hackers?
Now I'm not trying to say that Gattica IS innacurate, but 2 of the things that Hollywood tends to screw up the most are computer and medical storys.
Take anything you see in a movie with a very, VERY large grain of salt, half of the time even movies based off of the truth end up so very far from that truth they started with.
Though Gattaca is a good presentation of the very reason that there SHOULD be laws against this sort of thing (since it doesn't seem to be covered by current laws, according to that article).
Dark Nexus
Dark Nexus
"Sanity is calming, but madness is more interesting."
If it is illegal, then why did she loose her insurance coverage
It probably wasn't HER insurance coverage, but an employee health plan. Lose your job, lose the coverage.
Dark Nexus
Dark Nexus
"Sanity is calming, but madness is more interesting."
And if the disease is not race related?
I can see not being hired for tendency to Sickle Cell Anemia (predominately present in the black population), but what about other genes?
Say a damaged P53 (Cancer predilection)? AFAIK, that doesn't fall under ADA. And it's not an affliction, it's a POTENTIAL affliction. Subtle difference, but maybe enough to make it not apply under current laws (The usual IANAL applies).
Or here's a good one: Don't remember what the gene was, but it has an interesting result: The carriers of the gene are more likely to get AIDS. However, they are much less likely to die of it. What do you do in this case, as arguments can be made either way. The "normal" person has more expensive AIDS treatments, so do they get discriminated against? The carrier has less expensive AIDS treatments but is more likely to get it in the first place.
You aren't getting it.
The genetic diseases are POTENTIAL, not actuality. If someone is obese, they have a disability. If someone is missing a limb, they have a disability. Neither of these are potential disabilities, under the law they ARE a disability.
The law has rules against discrimination against an EXISTING disability. Where does the law cover one that MAY exist?
Think about it - there is already plenty of discrimination against things that may happen. Why does life insurance get more expensive as you get older? Why do people have different car insurance rates? No laws against any of this.
Is it?
Some states are "Right to Work". You can leave for any reason, they can fire you for any reason.
When things like this happen, you only make it worse by gloating like a fool. It shows excessive pride, an arrogance, which is wrong. It shows that you're the fool yourself.
Gloating isn't going to fix this problem, so get off your ass and do something to stop these things from happening again.
A man is wise when he knows he is a fool.
Chris 'coldacid' Charabaruk Meldstar Entertainment
i believe the military falls under different rules than normal situations tho... arent you like basically military property or some such bullshit once you enlist?
Stephen Hawking
'nuff said...
I have never understood why an employer would fire an employee for having a bad gene. If the person has the proper skills for the job, then they will most likely make the company a lot of money anyway. The health insurance will probably only be a fraction of the money that a skilled individual would bring into the company.
I think the biggest problem is the greed gene found in some of these employers...
The clash of honour calls, to stand when others fall.
Discrimination occurs when someone is refused a job because of something that is not related to his/her abilities to perform the task. Such as gender, skin color and I will include here "the POSSIBILITY that one gets a health problem in the future".
So, in your opinion, because you already lost a bit of something, you should loose everything?
Discrimination is indeed nothing new, but I think that they should be worried about. After all, that's why there are LAWS against discrimination already...
That is why it should not be possible for employers to get access to that kind of information. Judging on aspect is already bad enough...
One shall speak only if what one has to say is more beautiful than silence
So somebody could fire me because I have a gene for black skin? Interesting....
Actually that was spelled GATTACA and was an anagram based on the four base pairs of DNA - Adenine Guanine Cytosine and Thymine. Just a clarification...
If people had the knowlege that they have XX% chance of being killed in XX years from XX genetic desiese, would they make the effort to improve thier life quality with the knowlege that thier clock is ticking? A potental benafit of this is maybe all of us (including all the idiots, (comon' I bet you can think of 1 or two)) will start running around like thier life actually has a purpose.
I vote that a sense of life and death may bring some reality into people that most need it.
Care for any opinions on this?
FYI, I still don't know what side I am on.
But someone please answer it .. the article said there is little genetic descrimination for health insurance, because 1) the companies already ask a lot about family history and 2) the genetic information does not give a 100% accurate prediction. Insurance is based on probabilities and so it seems they don't think the probabilities are that much different.
So why did the company fire her? Because of the non-economic reason that they didn't want a sick person on their staff? Either the company shouldn't care, or the insurance companies should care more and descriminate. That doesn't seem rational that employers would descriminate and insurance companies wouldn't. Just wondering about that.
Now, while you are right and that I should have put it in more mild tones, let me tell you why I assumed they were rash at least(yes I do admit to that). The poster had a different opinion, yes, and I respect it if they show me it's what they believed. But in this case, there simply was no evidence backing up the person's points (I even quoted his entire post in sections already) and even admitted that their point was cruel. At the same time, I am forced to assume that this is a person who doesn't care about others, and that is compounded by the fact that the posting doesn't bother to tell me why I wouldn't be mad if I was discrimated against. That also goes for that person- what if they were discriminated against and treated cruelly, what would they think then? Just arbitrarilly making declarations without backup AND knowing that they offend people is what sickens me. Opinions are not right when others disagree strongly "just because".
If you can prove that you were fired (or not hired in the first place) because of genetic tests I'll be happy to pay the legal fees if I get a cut of the settlement!
I guarantee, 100% illegial! It's been proven in court many times, if you aren't highered because of your race, religion, affiliations, or afflictions you are a victim of discrimination and will get a hefty settlement.
I'm amazed. It's interesting stuff, but I'm sure completely illegal under current laws.
I guess my words are wasted on you...
When was the last time you heard of someone sueing a corp. that didn't hire them due to being overweight?
While that's not exactly an identical case, it is what's known as precident and will be followed by any judge.
Obesity is one example, there are millions more where a person's disability is held against them. Everything from anemia to being an amputee has been the cause of discrimination, and rarely does the disabled loose (Afterall, there are occasionally cases where the discrimination is false).
getting fired for having bad genes. that is something you especially expect from a country where a lot of people have the genetical defect to think deathpenalty is normal and weapons are for protection.
---
Privacy is terrorism.
It the USA employers can ask for a urine test, a blood test or a hair test. This is mainly to find traces of illicit drugs but I guess they can try to find anything else they want if they need to. In most parts of Europe such pre-employment testing is prohibited and you'll probably never find a company that asks for drug tests.
It seems to me that the real issue here is not the DNA-testing itself but any kind of testing. It simply is a violation of your privacy and the US legislature should prohibit any kind of pre-employment testing just like in Europe.
Now if DNA-testing doesn't become illegal soon we may end-up in a situation where only 100% healthy people are allowed to work while all 'potentially sick' citizens are unemployed which is totally ridiculous...
Oh, illegal! Well, that'll stop those big companies right in their tracks, won't it?
First, a woman looses both her insurance and her job, because of some DNA testing result. Then, some researcher says DNA-based insurance discrimination is illegal in the first place, thanks to "a legal patchwork in several states". If it is illegal, then why did she loose her insurance coverage?
The part about laws against employer DNA-testing being constantly shelved by the Justice is somewhat scary, though. Or, is the situation already like X-Files, where the Elite already conceded to handing over their DNA to aliens in exchange for protection, while also constituting a broad DNA database of the population, thus this whole mess is a non-issue for them? *grin*
--
Software is not supposed to be about how to work around a useability issue. - Ken Barber
Once everyone has been tested, categorized and found to be carrying some genetic hickup of some sort, then rejected for any employment, do you expect anyone to have any money left to buy anything, if they don't have any source of income left? DUH!
--
Software is not supposed to be about how to work around a useability issue. - Ken Barber
The recent example in Prague, where manifestants from around the globe were illegally arrested by the police and brutalized, is an example of what happens when "mundanes" try to even as much as speak against the system.
Be realistic, there won't be any planetary-wide "French Revolution" against a system that already equipped the police with military hardware for crowd control. People would just not be willing to accept the fact that casualties happen in any war, including a war against your own politicians and their police state; nowadays, they prefer to stay home and approve any law, until the said law affects them personally, at which point it's already too late to do anything about something you pushed your congressman to pass into legislation.
--
Software is not supposed to be about how to work around a useability issue. - Ken Barber
We elites do not like being threatened.
Seriously, though, what will the discontented masses do to all the supermen with tanks and guns? Not much.
Please please please mod me up! I'm serious! Pathetic, but serious!
Why would we want to trust the government to manage healthcare? We can't even get an accurate election result and you want us to put people's lives in the hands of our government? We pay up to 40% of our income to the federal government already, and all we get for it is a bunch of excess legislation, waste and corruption. I'm not willing to sell off all my assets in the interests of an unfair socialist system under the guise of humane health care.
It's no wonder that some of the wealthiest people in the US are the biggest supporters of these ideas. If socialized healthcare really cut into the pockets of these millionaire celebrities or perhaps some of the wealthy Democrats who claim they are fighting for the "people," I think they'd change their tune.
Im sure there is a gene for that
I applaud your rationale for attempting to get both the government and the employer away from healthcare. The problem is...who's left?
Even though healthcare in this situation would not be controlled by employers, it would still be controlled by big business. This is because, if the government is left completely out of it, healthcare would be forced to survive on its own...thus giving us basically what we have now...profit margin over basic needs. Healthcare would be a "big business" on its own.
Socialism is right now the best bet, the "least of all evils." It makes healthcare centralized and uniform. The only problem is that it would be the government that runs it. So instead of profit margin, it will be parisanism over basic needs. Greed is unnatural; disagreements are natural. I'd prefer the government disagreements over the private greed. But I'm saying right now: There is no adequate way any country can extricate government and business from managed care.
If you think this is bad, what about hacking into databases of genetic information? Stealing a bunch of credit card numbers isn't a big deal, and it isn't so uncommon, but as genomic data becomes more important, so does stealing it for whatever reasons. Hacking servers for genomic information is the online crime of the future.
I would believe that i am a troll. I commend your astute vision and your spotting skills.
It highlights the story of a woman whose life was probably saved by a simple genetic test. Unfortunately, the same test also cost her her job and health insurance.
This mandatory testing may be for the best. If such occurences, such as this woman ending up having her life saved, happen enough, then our society will be better off as a whole.
It may seem cruel, but this might be one of the best ways to screen for jobs. It will allow our businesses to have the best and healthiest employees. This will lead to increased production and satisfaction by the customer.
Another thing that this health issue could do is to provide a cheap way for poor people to get medical help. They could apply to these jobs, get the genetic testing, and then have treatment for their ailments.
This screening process may just be what the United States, even the World, needs for better health care and having a society without disease, maybe poverty and drugs, but not disease.
Also, if you get anything serious there's a waiting list for anything. If my doctor told me today I needed a brain/heart/whatever scan and the wait is 5 months, what would I do? Drive immediately to Buffalo NY, have it done the same day (and forego restaurant meals that quarter).
Socialised (=socialist) medicine is not the solution.
---
---
BDOS ERR ON A:>
And I entirely agree. No one is arguing with basics being covered. But on top of that, of you want to buy premium care, why should that be forbidden as it is in Canada? Makes no sense to me.
Plus, in the UK I used to see that private medicine actually forces the government system to compete by being somewhat effective.
---
---
BDOS ERR ON A:>
Just think- at a minimum, four moderators wasted points moderating this post up. Think about that.
Well, let's take it to a scarier place- directly to cost benefit anaylsis. I understand how people could find this sort of discrimination evil, but I'm not sure what to do with the implications. For instance, if our genetic studies DO get good enough to detect diseases early on, doesn't that mean that these "sicker" people are getting a free ride on medical costs at the expense of healthy people? Is that really fair? For my insurance premiums to be high because other people are sicker than me, but wont admit it, and so the comapny has to crank up the price to deal with all these out-of-the-blue claims? If you're going to cost insurance companies more, why exactly SHOULDN'T you have to pay more? Companies now want to fire these "sicker" people because in the end they raise costs- they're more trouble than they're worth. I'm sure some deal can be arragend by which te "sicker" people pay much higher company premiums to cover it- until then I can totally see why companies wouldn't want some potentially very costly employee just dumping their disease on the company.
It doesn't work like that. Insurance companies are perfectly justified in denying coverage, or charging more for coverage- for people with already established medical conditions. Same goes for smokers, people who have higher risks of illness. Why? Because taking on someone with a higher risk of illness means that they are essentially making a bet with better odds of paying out than most people.
Why would we want to trust the government to manage healthcare?
An understandable position. The U.S. government doesn't seem to be able to do anything efficiently.
On the other hand, why trust HMO's to manage our healthcare? Not only do they have a big beurocracy, but their primary incentive is to avoid actually supplying any healthcare.
The result is a giant catch-22 in health care: Increasingly, only those who are unlikely to need significant health care can afford it while those who are likely to need it will have it denied. The result is that a century of western medical progress is being ignored by increasing numbers of people in favor of affordable (and sometimes effective) folk medicine. It is actually to the point that middle class people WITH health insurance can end up insolvent due to one medical crisis. They then get to start over without health insurance. Surely, even the government can do no worse (perhaps not much better, but no worse).
The reasons for the problem are complex and inter-twined. One of them is a crazy court system that can't tell the difference between a competant doctor miraculously pulling a patient from the brink of death with only a 10% disability and a quack who manages to turn a minor medical incident into a lifetime disability. There's the fact that some medical research is just not profitable even though society as a whole stands to benefit from it. Some other products of research ARE profitable, but since patients literally can't live without them, corperates are free to charge astronomical prices. There's a screwed up patent office that lets companies prospect nature for existing cures (some of which are part of existing folk medicine) and patent them as if they custom tailored the molecules themselves (rather than limiting them to a more modest profit in line with a more modest investment).
I'm not willing to sell off all my assets in the interests of an unfair socialist system under the guise of humane health care.
You better hope you never get seriously ill. If you do, you will have the choice: sell off all of your assets or die.
When dealing with the issue of genetic discrimination, why would it be better to create a large government beaurocracy for healthcare as opposed to just barring anybody but your personal doctors from having access to such records?
That would only solve half (or less) of the problem. I have read essays written by practicing physicians talking about HMO pressures on them to get rid of their sicker patients! Essentially, they are alloted X amount per patient per year PERIOD. If theyt consistantly go over that amount because they have sicker patients, they are out of the program and all of their patients insured through the HMO are reassigned. Given the choice of getting rid of the sicker patients or getting out of medicine, even the most dedicated doctor may be forced to discriminate based on your medical records.
Note that it isn't all that hard to set the cost ceiling so that the same patients end up with no medical care as under a system of genetic discrimination.
It's not that I trust the government to actually be efficient and honest, it's just that I KNOW the HMO's will primarily be effeciant at making sure thet only healthy people can see a doctor.
If my doctor told me today I needed a brain/heart/whatever scan and the wait is 5 months, what would I do? Drive immediately to Buffalo NY, have it done the same day (and forego restaurant meals that quarter).
And if you had already forgone the restaurant meals to pay your mortgage you would...? And if that health coverage for your scan didn't exist, I imagine you'd forego the scan (since surely homelessness wouldn't be good for your possible brain/heart/whatever condition).
Simply having a good income doesn't necessarily help. Consider the case where you happen to get into a terrible accident the day after you quit/get laid off/get fired from your job.
You haven't lived until you get in an accident and as you lie on a gurney bleeding, the first person you see at the hospital is.....The person who wants you to fill out the insurance forms (With your injured hand no less).
What I take away from your argument is that there will probably need to be a combination of universal health care and premium for pay health care.
yeah, and the fact that Uma Thurman's genes made her a good genetic mate-match, but the poor guy forgot that if he did have kids with her, they'd have her funny looking nose.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
We know that from the Mormons and Christian Scientists, it's FAR riskier to have a belief system that disallows blood transfusion, than it is to accept a needed transfusion to save ones' life - with the risk of contracting HIV.
The ones that don't get blood transfusions bleed to death from minor injuries in car accidents, or from opting out of life-saving surgeries.
Only a very small fraction of those that DO get transfusions have a chance of contracting HIV.
Oh, by "high risk" behavior, you're talking about ass-fucking? I thought you were talking about something else. Sorry. Everyone knows that "high risk behavior" is ass-fucking, and that's the ONLY way to catch HIV. Right.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
The solution to AIDS does not have to be biological evolution, it can be cultural evolution. People who engage in high risk behavior will die out. Those that avoid that behavior will take their place. I'm not saying that anyone "deserves" to get AIDS, just that natural selection is not limited to genetic traits.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
What if someone belongs to a religion or culture that strongly discourages the high risk behavior? Parents pass religion and culture on to their children. The transmission rate does not have to be 100% for it to be effective.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
There actually are people who are showing remarkable resilience to AIDS, having been infected and contagious for many years, while still being asymptomatic.
Not many, but some. (Kinda like Captain Trips)
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
This does remind me of the movie Gattica. That movie presented an underlying plot where society is based completely upon genetic predisposition. While the movie presents this brave new world, the underlying theme shows many flaws with such a model.
The olympic athelete with a broken back still is genetically superiour and his genes show no evidence of his disability.
The boy who was too weak to swim out further than his brother and made it back discovered that he could win if he simply didn't save any energy for the trip back.
In a society where your hair, blood, and eyes are used for identification, nobody pays much attention to your face.
True talent will exceed all expectations. There will always be people who recognize that talent and will overlook disadvantages that may not be present at all.
-Restil
Play with my webcams and lights here
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Is this surprising? The world's richest country cannot provide healthcare for millions of its citizens and business is making decisions on whether you live or die.
Works great until you pay in anything but cash. If you use your credit / debit card, you and your "Martha Bush" profile will become linked...
-jerdenn
If you don't believe de-evolution can occur, just think, poodles "evolved" from wolves.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
The GNPA sounds pretty worthless to me. Here's what the offer letter from my past job said:
"This offer is contingent upon the results of (employer's) standard background check."
And when you sign the offer letter, you're agreeing to let them perform that standard background check. You don't sign it, you don't get the job, so the best you can do is sign in and pray their "standard background check" doesn't include exploratory gropings of your double helices.
What's needed is a law like the one cited by another poster which totally prohibits genetic discrimination.
zo.
This example takes place in the UK
You tell your employer you need to see the doctor. Your employer says "fine, take friday afternoon to see him". (S)he then scans your recent emails to see the email you used to book your appointment (respiratory difficulties, whatever). A while later, it comes to their attention, because you've been less than discreet, that you have a genetically transmitted defect that limits the probability of your surviving past the age of 45 to 50%. It's just a statistic, but the odds don't look good for their training budget so they unofficially limit the amount of experience or training you receive. The rationale for this is that whilst you MAY survive to retirement age, the odds of your doing so are limited, and therefore you are not as good a bet as the other, equally bright people of your age in the company. You find out that your potential maximum rank in the company is limited, and discover the reason. When in court contesting the decision, you find yourself faced with every even slightly non-business-related email you've written over the past 8 years compiled into a huge directory that fills a number of lever-arch files, and these are all put in front of the jury with the words, "look at what (s)he spends their time at work doing... this is why we're firing him/her, they're obviously not doing what they're paid for", they then draw the jury's attention to a number of emails you've written over the years that contain sexual/libellous/offensive/potentially confidential content, and bring out a laundry list of rules and guidelines in your contract that you have broken. You haven't got a leg to stand on.
Ok - far fetched - or maybe not. Every element of this storyline has happened in the past, just not all at the same time and to the same person, but put it all together, and your right to privacy and your right to a fair trial, and your right to equal opportunities all go out the window. Most people have sent a rude joke on company time, sent a dozen emails to friends organising parties, mentioned something that - interpreted in the right/wrong context - will look like a breach of confidentiality.
Even if such a thing didn't happen, the fact that we live in a society that has the capability of bringing about this kind of a scenario is what we should be worried about. We shouldn't wait until a few dozen people have been treated in this way before we are deemed to have enough evidence to get something done about it - I prefer shutting the stable door before the horse has bolted.
Of course, giving employees the right to exploit their companies systems ad infinitum and treating the companies like criminal entities just because they COULD do this kind of thing isnt the answer either - so I'm being quite unhelpful inasmuch as I'm just pointing out the problems rather than proposing solutions.
Salocin.com
When an employee takes time to goes for medical treatment the employer requests the reason. Now, if you need days off (ie. under FMLA), the employer has a right to know the reason.
In all of the above, the employer is not to use this information to discriminate, but they do.
The impression that most ADA cases are lost is not accurate. That percentage is based on a result from a trial. If an employer is faced with a strong case, the employer will settle.
Fight Spammers!
...a person who depends on his job to put FOOD ON HIS TABLE can just "not work for" a boss who is a bastard? This is not the way it works. Have YOU ever had to hold down a crappy job with an asshole boss, just for bare subsistence? I doubt it, or else you'd be slightly less flippant about people's futures and fortunes, which are at stake.
You might be lucky enough to have a job with an understanding and compassionate boss, but you are in the minority. Most people don't have the luxury of picking and choosing which jobs they can work, and if they get fired, they don't just take it with a shrug as you seem to indicate. It can really mess up their lives. Sure, we can all complain about our bosses, but when it comes down to the bottom line, most can't just quit.
As to the government restricting employers' decisions on hiring and firing: such controls would be unneccessary if employers (like the one from the article) didn't prove themselves to be assholes. Not hiring someone because their skin is too dark or their age is too great is no better than not hiring them because they are afflicted with a medical condition through no fault of their own.
Unfortunately, when eugenics finally comes along, it will be discriminatory people such as yourself making the decisions as to what people should be like. Thus, there will be no one left to even understand the argument within 100 years. =P
If, in a generation or two, your children, friends, or other loved ones are denied access to employment, higher education, or affordable housing due to genetic testing... will you still be saying "so what"?
-Kasreyn.
Kasreyn: Cheerfully playing the part of Devil's Advocate to hairtrigger
If you think your boss is a bastard, then don't work for him.
Her story and an update on the legal proceedings. Terri Seargent was named in the Congressional debate as an example of a person genetically discriminated against.
"You know you want me baby!" - Crow T Robot
This is the phrenology of the 21st cen. Whether the information is useful or not its what we do with it that's important. We assign an importance to this gene or that. And just like phrenology we assume that our science is correct and valuable and a predictor. In fact its just another reflection of our own biases. To say nothing of the non science potential: the crime gene, the jewish gene, the crack gene, the bad driving gene.....etc.... we can justify anything based on our so called science. So did the witch trials.
It looks like you've fallen victim to the media propaganda, friend.
Truth of the matter is, universal healthcare can be *less* expensive than private healthcare. For instance, Canada's healthcare system costs the country about 40% less of its national income than the US healthcare system.
The problem with private healthcare is that its interest *must* be in maximizing profits, *not* maximizing health. If everyone in the USA were to suddenly become healthy, the private healthcare industry would collapse.
It's the same problem with private healthcare insurance. Its interest must, once again, be in maximizing profit. Ergo, it *must* rid itself of coverage of expensive illnesses.
The biggest problem with the American system is, inevitably, its absolute insistence on private corporate profits over public good. The second biggest problem is the brainwashing that those corporations are doing, to ensure that the mass public doesn't think things through.
This is going to sound harsh, but *give your head a shake!* Dare to challenge your own assumptions, habits and beliefs. You just might discover that you've been shammed.
For what it's worth, the [Washington Monthly] has an eye-opening article that begins to chip away at the media/corporate bullshit.
--
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
...because I live in a county where this is now illegal.
:-]
P.S. Merry Christmas to everybody else who can't sleep.
--
I use Macs for work, Linux for education, and Windows for cardplaying.
"Go on just give it to me Doc I can take it"
"well it looks like you have a genetic predisposition to Slashdot And everquest" *cring*"NO!!!!, Doc you can't tell my wife or my boss, she'll leave me and worst yet he'll reconfiger the fire wall. *sobing*
________
Does anyone actually have a Java program designed to control air traffic, or for the operation of a nuclear facility?
More proof that businesses should be heavily regulated. Other than really small businesses, I swear that not a single for-profit organization gives half a rat's ass about it's employees.
And when the government does nothing to help, that screams that the government is either completely useless, or that it's been supressed, bought off, etc., by the businesses.
I think it's time when the people of the world rise up and throw off the shackles forced on them by businesses. You can see that business is evil and a negative influence on everything, from people to the environment. It's time we fought with something more effective than litigation.
This is it boys, this is war.
Chris 'coldacid' Charabaruk Meldstar Entertainment
We don't know enough about human genetic structure to make informed decisions, though.
Natural selection doesn't need any 'help', and in the long run, genetic diversity is this specie's only chance of survival. If we concentrate on encouraging only those traits that are 'best' given current situations, we give up long term adaptibility.
We'll end up with a reletivly genetically homogenous species quite possibly lacking in the potential for further positive evolution. Human beings have succeeded thusfar because as a species they are highly adaptable.
We should encourage the survival of as many different genetic makeups as possible and try to halt any trends toward homogenization. Thus, rather than conducting genetic screening, we should ban interracial breeding.
Please please please mod me up! I'm serious! Pathetic, but serious!
Myself having hemophilia, my treatments in the form of synthetic factor are extremly expensive, costing in the hundreads of thousands of dollars PER MONTH. This is more than many conditions, including AIDs and most cancers. You can imagine this was a huge drain and was quite costly to the company.
The solution in the company's mind was termination, but it was obvious this would be asking for trouble. So, they took the route *most* travelled and pushed my father out. They would find things to complain about, fire all his staff and make him frantic -- they basically made it like hell. He eventually quit, with these retaining these rumors.
So, in a way, it's similar to genetic discrimination in the other case. So it isn't just a "look what happened to that laddy" article, and I take real offense to that considering this is what most companies do all the time. And don't think your personal records are safe because insurance-company communication is very frequent, especially if they are close knit as in this case. Do you have a company logo on your insurance card or is does your company have any association with your insurance provider (if covered by your employment plan)? If so, it would be trivial for any one sufficiently high enough in the company to get ahold of anything medically about you, probably down to the linens used in your last clinic checkup.
So, from this moment, no employer will fire anyone based on the colour of your skin, gender, ethnic origin. He will just say: "Oh you have the gene XXX. Our company policies do not accept people with XXX genes..."
Funny? Note. Many black people have a problem with red blood cells. This problem is a two blade knife. The gene may be inherited from both parents and you may get sick with a mostly deadly anemia. However if you have inherited it from only one parent then you are highly resistent to malaria. Good and bad. However an employer may use this as an argument to kick you out anyway. For some there is only the need for half truth. On the rest he will find tons of arguments to forget about it.
I wish we'd gotten more information on the case mentioned at the top of the article. How did her employer find out about her condition? Was her health insurance through her employer? If so, did her insurance company notify her employer? To do so would seem to be an extreme breach of privacy. Or did she simply talk about it around the office (not realizing the possible ramifications) and someone upstairs felt they must "do something"? And is it absolutely certain that she lost her job because of her condition?
As the article mentions, requiring a family history is a crude form of genetic screening and is done all the time. We tolerate it because a) it's not that accurate and b) it allows insurers to lower their rates. But a few more details might shed some light on exactly what impropriety occured. As it is, this is simply a "ooh, look what happened to her!" article.
Think about it
In America and other industrialized societies pretty much everyone survives and reproduces. I can't imagine much survival of the fittest going on...
Meanwhile in Africa I foresee that people will evolve to become immune to AIDS. AIDS is rampant in Africa, and we're going to see the emergence of a strain of humans who are naturally resistant to HIV. Simply because they will survive while everyone else dies.
Evolution is based on the deaths of those who are not fit... Something to think about.
TimOmnia vestra castrorum habetur nobis.
No universal heathcare, it's your own fault America. The fact that you can be 'denied' heathcare in an otherwise fully first world country is insane..
It's not just Europe that is like that - most companies in Canada (barring ones that are puppets for US based companies) do not require drug testing. This is for the most part because you can't be fired in Canada (and Europe, IIRC) for drug abuse, as that would be discriminatory - your employer in most cases would even offer rehabilitation!. If you're not paying me, what I do at home, or what I did 5 years before coming to work for you is none of your business. I show up coked/stoned/drunk, that's a different matter. One of the things that irks me is that you can tell if someone's out of it without making them piss in a bottle.
If you don't want to see "blood test" added to the list of employment pre-screens, refuse them! I have only had to do this once, and got the job regardless. Tell them you object to the violation of your privacy - and you'd be suprised that most of the time you get agreed with. I'm shocked they would ask - I mean, what would they do if you asked THEM to piss in a bottle for you so you can see what kind of workplace they run?
Another thing that is distrubing is that these tests produce paperwork, and you have no control over the paperwork - it gets sent to the employer. So, you think that your credit cards are worth worrying about? Would you be worried about your medical/drug history, likely stored unsecured? Plan on running for office in 20 years? (I won't even let employers keep my school transcripts on file - you want to look, fine, but you're not getting a copy!). I get ill thinking about people that use those supermarket buying cards - I'm sure my health insurer would love to cancel my insurance in 50 years because I drank a 24 of beer every week or ate 3 pounds of bacon every weekend (etc).
You have a choice. "Just Say No". If you lose the job, fine, there are other jobs out there. If you don't say no, then don't bitch and moan when you're a second class citizen as a result. The jobs that actually have some merit to requiring drug testing are few, and the ones requiring DNA testing are IMHO non-existant.
..don't panic
Over the past year, I've had several more tests done by several different doctors that confirm the bad heart valve. One Army doctor thinks I have Marfan's Syndrome, but I think that's a mis-diagnose due to the lack of evidence and I only have the heart problem. None of the other problems. Anyways, back to the Pink Slip part.
My doctor used this information to deem me "Not Worldwide Qualified" category, which basically means I got fired. Of this, a medical board conviened and confirmed his decision. I challenged their decision on a basis of lack of evidence. They had the results from 2 Echocardiograms and 1 MUGA Scan. They decided that I should be discharged with a severance pay and a disability rating. I did not want to leave the military. So I challenged their decision and flew to Texas to a formal Medical Evaluation Board. After a whole bunch of political and monetary bullshit, I got to see a cardiologist, finally. And talk with an Air Force lawyer. The cardiologist did a few more tests and basically just confirmed that I had a bad Aortic Heart Valve. He does not think that I have Marfan's Syndrome. And my lawyer was of little help. He just wanted to not do any paperwork, I think. He did tell me that if I did challenge the board, I would lose. I would lose because the team of medical experts that sat on the formal MEB would somehow prove that this was a pre-existing, read genetic condition. And if they did, I'd lose everything. The severance pay, disability rating, and my job. So I decided not to pursue it any farther and risk losing everything, so I took their original offer and got out.
They still haven't proved anything other than I have a heart problem. So now, I have a heart problem that could or could not be related to my AF duties, but I have something that I can go to the VA with.
Soooo....to make a long story short, I was fired because of a possibly genetic condition. A Lose, Win situation if you ask me. Sure, I lost my job, but I'm getting out of this freezing place that's in the middle of nowhere and heading back to the states. I start school again next month and will have some experiance 'under my belt.' At least now I can have some chance of getting out of such a deeply entrenched WinNT network that barely has funding and go to something that at least has money flowing into its IT department. And get that piece of paper that says, "[Insert name here] you have shelled out several [ten's of] thousand dollars to us so that we can certify that you are smart enough to become part of the vast corporate ladder."
Amigori
--------------
The Air Force. A good experience if you can deal with politics and stupid people, you can work here.
"The quality of life is determined by its activites."--Aristotle
I don't see any problem with that. Employers should be able to hire/fire based on dress code. I mean, come on, I think it's perfectly justified to fire someone for dirty jeans....
Oh.. wait.. you meant genes. My bad.
Information is the catalyst for revolution
For those of you wondering what current laws cover here's a clarification:
Firstly, there is no specific federal law that says discrimination on the basis of your genetic information is illegal. Some judges have interpreted the ADA as doing so however, and also some people say the EEOC theoretically covers the issue. Of course, with the cases mentioned it's hard to say whether or not that actually works. There is another problem however. The ADA talks mostly about disabilties and to some extent refers to asymptomatic conditons (those not triggered yet for whatever reason) but the extent of asymptomatic coverage is also debated. For example, a woman was given health coverage but since she carried a gene for cystic fibrosis, her unborn baby was already denied insurance because it was most likely that it would develop such diseases.
Secondly, there ARE state laws protecting the rights to privacy- they just don't cover everything or everybody. Remember, since there is no uniform policy there is no uniform coverage in between any states. It is hard to generalize what protection is given, and in some cases the legislation only covers discrimination on insurance policies, by far not enough to include employment. Most advocates for a federal policy cite that these laws are too confusing, vague, and sometimes limited to actually help out the people in the cases mentioned.
That doesn't mean there hasn't been attempts to pass legislation in the past. The GPNA (Genetic Privacy and Non-Discrimination Act) of 1997 failed to pass through Congress, mostly in part because people saw the ADA as a good protection and that genetic privacy issues would thus never be a problem. If only Congress had the benefit of hindsight then. The GPNA would prevent disclosure of genetic data of a person to anybody without the written consent of that person (with a few lawful exceptions of course, such as body IDing and for criminal investigations). Generally speaking, if we get a comprehensive policy covering all Americans equally and specifically addressing the issues presented by genetic discrimination, most and hopefully all of the cases will never come up again.
--------
To smash the little atom, all mankind was intent. Now any day the atom may return the compliment.