Slashdot Mirror
IBM Vows Not to Genetically Discriminate
An anonymous reader writes "Today the New York Times is reporting that IBM announced the addition of genetic makeup (Genetic Registration Required) to its non-discrimination policy. It appears that IBM is the first company worldwide to do this. With congress considering genetic privacy legislation, and with projects like the National Geographic Genographic Project, are we nearing the time when we all need to worry about our genetic privacy?"
At that point, it wouldn't necessarily be discrimination. It is pretty much the same principle as a health care provider not accepting your request or raising your rates if you smoke. Smoking increases risks of cancer, heart disease, and other illnesses, so it makes sense that the health care provider denies your request or raises your rates. Now, refusal to hire someone based on genetic predispositions to something is an extreme example, and that is wrong. However, reduced benefits for extreme predispositions or other things (hidden genetic illnesses) might be justified.
Not only "land of the free" but "land of the lawyers" who love a good old 1st amendment smackdown. Shihar 153932
The problem with this is that someone has to pay for it. If you have genetic privacy legislation, then you can keep it secret from the insurance companies. However, all this means is that everyone else's premiums will go up to cover the undisclosed risky people. The risky people cost more, as a statistical fact, and SOMEONE has to pay for it, so maybe that should be the general population.
And I am not being sarcastic here -- I am saying that maybe it is a societal solution. I Definitely think it is in the best interests of society to have all of us pay for Katrina clean-up, not just those affected by it. However, it is a different situation to use societal money to rebuild those areas, below sea level, water held back by bumps and walls...
I think there comes a time when particular people in society engage in such risky behavior that society cannot afford to pay for their mistakes. From what I have read of the literature, you have a 50% chance to pass the gene of Huntington's to your child, and a 25% chance of giving them the disease. Is it up to society to pay for that child's medical care for life when you knowingly engage in this risky behavior?
You are effectively gambling with hundreds of thousands of other taxpayers' dollars when you decide to have a child. And I am not saying you should be prohibited from having a child, merely that the people who will likely be PAYING for this child's medical care should have a vote as to whether they support paying for it. If not, then the child must be supported by his family.
The situation would be no different than AIDS a child inherits from his parent. If you bring a child into the world having AIDS yourself, you know there is a good chance your child may have it. That is unnecessarily risky behavior and it is irresponsible to assume that society should "clean up" after you in the sense of providing health care to the child.
There has to be times when society says, "OK, sir, engage in whatever behavior you wish, but we cannot support you in this action". Dangerous sports activities are one of these sorts of things, and deliberately bringing children into the world who are likely to be diseased are another.
And I am not saying that these actions should not be allowed to happen; no, merely I am saying that the taxpayers of society should have a vote as to whether they allow their money to go to such uses.
This is a democracy and people on wellfare having children only to increase their government handouts are leeches on the system. They are a leech by choice; you could potentially be a leech by wreckless action and disregard for others' (time and money).
I don't mean to sound morbid but perhaps you would be doing society a favor by removing your genes from the gene pool and not reproducing. After all, is it fair to bring a child into the world only for his life to be plagued by this condition? Is it fair to society to force others to support him, when this likely condition was known about in advance?