Slashdot Mirror
Genetic Testing Coming To a Drugstore Near You
Hugh Pickens writes "The Chicago Sun-Times reports that Walgreens is slated to begin selling genetic-testing kits priced from $20 to $30 apiece that can tell people whether they're likely to get breast cancer, Alzheimer's disease, become obese, or suffer from a range of other maladies. However, to get the results of various tests, shoppers will have to fork over an additional $79 for drug-response results, $179 for 'pre-pregnancy planning' results, $179 for health condition results, or $249 for a combination of the three. Pathway Genomics and other companies already offer such tests online, but Walgreens will be the first brick-and-mortar retailer to sell them. FDA spokeswoman Karen Riley says Pathway overstepped its bounds when it announced its plans to market the tests directly to the consumer at 6,000 of Walgreen's 7,500 stores and wants Pathway Genomics to submit data showing that its tests give accurate results. 'The claims have limitations based on existing science,' says Riley, 'and consumers should not be making important medical and lifestyle decisions based on these tests without first consulting a health-care professional.' Walgreen responded that FDA clearance is not required to sell the kit in its stores; and anyway, the drugstore chain already sells other diagnostic and testing products such as pregnancy tests, paternity tests, and drug tests."
I do accept all that, but my train is still late, so I have to ask her to not leave my kid unattended for another 10 minutes...
If she (or her union) claim, she has to leave anyway, or even simply charge me "overtime" (150%, one hour minimum), I'll start looking for a new nanny immediately. And so will you.
Point is, we are all employers...
Why I actually switch a shop is irrelevant! But, if there anything about my old barber, that's "protected", a reasonably zealous anti-discrimination officer may (nay, must!) get interested anyway — and I'd hate to live in a country, where I'd have to explain all of my, supposedly, free decisions.
"Hello. We've noticed, that over the past 12 months you've ordered pizza 5 times more often than General Tsao's chicken. We suspect, you are a White bigot discriminating against Asians. Please, hand over all of your purchase-records for a closer audit."
This is, what the sufficiently large employers already have to do. Some of them may be bigots, and some may not be — in either case, if I don't want it applied to me, I don't want it applied to anybody.
You can shove your "support and respect" where the Sun does not shine, but your promise, that you may not send the authorities after me is insufficient. Because tomorrow you "may" change your mind...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
You are not aware, therefor it must be BS...
Yes, a contract. A contract with the worker, not their union. Surely, workers are entitled (by freedom of association) to form any groups, etc. But no one — neither the giant automakers nor the nanny-hiring families — must be legally-bound to hire union-only. And any union-won contracts to that effect must be studied with the anti-monopoly bias.
It is not any more of a "falsehood" than any other caricature. Individual consumers' tastes in food aren't (yet?) targeted, but the employers' tastes in employees already are. I argue, that these aren't different from each other.
When you call for a food delivery, you are employing the restaurant. If we were to consistently apply the same laws to all employers, we'd have to study such food-ordering habits for signs of bigotry in the same way, personnel-hiring of companies is already studied by Attorney Generals.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Ever heard of the Ptolemaic model of the world? It seemed correct, but new and new facts required more and more exceptions until collapsing under their weight. Once you begin talking about "shades of grey" and "exceptions where needed", you admit, your model is junk...
The workers wanting to bargain collectively aren't evil — they are doing, what's best for them. What is evil are the laws, that recognize unions as anything more than a group of people willing to associate with each other... No such laws should exist. A "union" of New York City transit workers should have no more legal recognition, that the community of Slashdot posters.
Moreover, given that unions are organizations set up with the explicit goal of maintaining and raising the price of what their members are selling (their own labor), they should be viewed as monopolies, subject to "trust-busting" laws.
If Staples and Office Depot were prevented from merging with each other for fear, the price of office supplies would go up, why do we allow our supply of healthcare, education, transportation, as well as crime- and fire-fighting to be controlled by the price-fixing monopolies?
My argument, for the last time is that we are all employers, and, when considering any employment-regulating law (such as the ban on the use of genetic-testing by employers, implicitly suggested at the top of this thread), we should apply it to ourselves from the other end too: do I want this (or similar) law to control my interactions with all these people I hire: food takeout, gardener, nanny, cab-driver?
For a particular example, I don't want my nanny to have above-average incidence of sickness — even it is not contagious — because, any time she can't show up, I have to skip my work. So if, when interviewing candidates, I can quickly check their health, I'd want to be able to do it. This makes me sympathetic to the other employers wanting healthy employees. Someone of poor health may try to compensate with something else (higher productivity, better education, willingness to accept lower pay, whatever), but any bans on the use of any criteria are just that: Illiberal.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.