Slashdot Mirror


Bill To Outlaw Genetic Discrimination In US

fatduck sends us a brief note from New Scientist about the overwhelming passage in the US House of Representatives of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act. As written, the bill would prohibit insurance companies from charging higher rates, and employers from discriminating in hiring, based on the results of genetic tests. A Boston Globe editorial notes that the bill has been held up in the Senate by the action of a single senator, who has an (outdated) objection based on his anti-abortion stance. President Bush has said he will sign the bill if it reaches his desk.

6 of 353 comments (clear)

  1. Will "illegal" mean it won't happen? by eldurbarn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's illegal to fire someone for trying to start a union at his place of work, but I got fired, anyway. They claimed I had quit.

    Suddenly the burden of proof falls to the injured party and all the "big bad company" has to do is have some form of plausible denyability.

    Big words, high ideals, changes nothing.

    --
    -Eldurbarn
  2. Re:So what is the problem? by Falesh · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So that poor 5% of the population who have been born with some nasty genetic baggage can not only look forward to a worse life then the rest but also have to pay through the nose too? Not my kinda society thank you.

  3. Oh NOW you tell me by rantingkitten · · Score: 5, Funny

    After I already paid the guy to become a borrowed ladder and spent four weeks in leg braces to get taller. Thanks for nothing!

    --
    mirrorshades radio -- darkwave, industrial, futurepop, ebm.
  4. It doesn't sound like it goes far enough by erroneus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    While I agree with the spirit of the bill, they need to do something better. Genetic information should be restricted medical information only. More than the fact that employers and insurers should not be allowed to discriminate based on the information, they shouldn't be allowed to have or see that information at all. Preventing them from making decisions based on the information is an area frought with grey areas that it runs the risk of being highly ineffective because in spite of the fact that there are many criteria by which insurers are prohibited to descriminate, they manage to skirt the matter by descriminating based on "similar" and statistically related information... you know, like zip codes instead of ethnicity?

    The only way to truly prevent the problem from occuring is to make it illegal for them to house the information entirely. There's no grey area there. They either have it or not. Their databases either contains provisions for it or not. If they have it, you shouldn't even have to ask why. They should be fined, reprimanded and shut down until the information is proven to be purged from their databases and database record formats.

    If someone suggests "but it's about identity!" I'd have to remind them that the SSN is already being illegally abused for that purpose... it's more than enough.

  5. Re:Not sure how to think about this. by Assassin+bug · · Score: 5, Interesting

    There should be some limits, but who wouldn't want to get rid of conditions that produce people who are a burden on society? (retards, etc.)


    My sister is mentally retarded. Whereas I agree with your statement in part (i.e., ridding her of her condition would be a wonderous thing for her), I strongly disagree that she is a burden on society. Rather, society places a much, much larger burden on her because of her condition. She is gainfully employed and pays taxes, what more would society want from anyone? I don't think that "retards", as you so kindly refer to people like my sister, are as great a burden as those who seek to committ homicide. Maybe there might be a genetic condition associated with such behaviors. Anyway, the bigger problem is who becomes the genetic "gold standard" and who makes the descision. Should that be left up to companies that house their employees in creepy sterile office buildings?
  6. The difference by Kaseijin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I smoke, therefore I pay higher rates for life insurance, why shouldn't someone who had a genetic predisposition for lung cancer be penalized just as much as me?
    You made a choice. They didn't.