Ban genetic discrimination: National standard is needed

DjaugheOld · March 15th, 2005, 06:57 AM

Its amazing to think that we're at a point to have to protect ourselves from genetic discrimination.

Quote:

OPINION

Ban genetic discrimination: National standard is needed

The Senate has passed a bill against using genetic testing to discriminate, supported by the AMA and President Bush. Now the House must follow suit.

Editorial. March 21, 2005.

Knowledge is power, so the saying goes. But in the case of genetic testing, many people fear that the opposite is true.

As genetic testing moved from the stuff of science fiction to reality, it opened the promise of early diagnosis, prevention and even therapy to countless patients at risk of developing various diseases and conditions. But rather than feeling empowered, patients all too often feel vulnerable.

They worry that their genetic test results could be used against them by health insurers and employers. That they could be denied insurance or charged higher rates. That they could be fired from their jobs or never get hired in the first place, based on the contents of their DNA.

These patients often turn to their physicians for advice about whether it's safe to get a genetic test. But doctors are at a disadvantage, because the patchwork of state and federal laws designed to protect people from genetic discrimination is practically impossible to figure out.

A bipartisan bill that just passed unanimously in the Senate aims to solve the problem. It would set a national standard banning genetic discrimination in the workplace and in health insurance.

The measure, sponsored by Sen. Olympia Snowe (R, Maine), has the backing of President Bush, who pointed out that misuse of genetic information "raises serious moral and legal issues."

The American Medical Association, which has long-standing policy against genetic discrimination, also supports the legislation. The bill would enable and encourage patients to take advantage of genetic counseling, testing and new therapies without worrying that such information could be used against them, the AMA stated in a letter to senators.

Already, more than 1,000 genetic tests are available. And the science is continually advancing. Just last month, the National Human Genome Research Institute announced development of a new test for babies born with inherited forms of severe immune deficiency that, if undetected, typically lead to death before the child's first birthday. The test, which still must be validated before it can be broadly used, eventually could be added to the panel of tests that already screens newborns for a variety of disorders.

But without the assurances provided by the legislation, patients' fears will prevent genetic tests such as this one from reaching their full potential. How useful can a test be if many of the patients who would benefit from it are too afraid to take it?

Health insurers and businesses who oppose the legislation argue that existing state and federal laws are sufficient to protect patients. Lawmakers should not legislate based on consumer fear alone, they say.

But real people have faced real discrimination. A brochure published last year on behalf of the Coalition for Genetic Fairness, an alliance of groups that support legislation banning genetic discrimination, includes such examples. One case involves a woman whose children were denied health insurance because they carried the gene for alpha-1-antitrypsin deficiency. The company's ruling came even after medical professionals said the children would never develop the disease themselves.

The current state and federal protections that opponents of legislation point to aren't enough. The state laws vary widely. Some, for example, cover insurance discrimination but not employment discrimination. Federal laws, such as the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, contain loopholes. For instance, HIPAA insurance protections don't apply to people with individual coverage.

That's why the Senate bill's uniform protections are so needed.

But the Senate's passage of the legislation is only the first step. Now the House must act. That body has a poor track record on the issue. After the Senate passed a genetic nondiscrimination measure in 2003, the House effort fizzled and the bill died. The new legislative effort must not suffer the same fate.

Patients deserve to benefit -- without fear -- from the powerful knowledge that genetic tests offer.

CaptTurbo · March 15th, 2005, 07:00 AM

There was a great movie about this sort of thing with Uma Thurman in it I think. Great movie. Very good look at what the future can hold.

EDIT:

Let me ask you. If you owned a company and had a choice between 2 qualified applicants for CIO and was able to see their genetics and one was going to have a heart attack at 41 and the other a very long healthy life who would you hire?

PortlandCardFan · March 15th, 2005, 07:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by swd1974

There was a great movie about this sort of thing with Uma Thurman in it I think. Great movie. Very good look at what the future can hold.

EDIT:

Let me ask you. If you owned a company and had a choice between 2 qualified applicants for CIO and was able to see their genetics and one was going to have a heart attack at 41 and the other a very long healthy life who would you hire?

You talking about GATICA?

FischerKing · March 15th, 2005, 07:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by swd1974

Let me ask you. If you owned a company and had a choice between 2 qualified applicants for CIO and was able to see their genetics and one was going to have a heart attack at 41 and the other a very long healthy life who would you hire?

i'll bite - character is at the top of my list, not necessarily health. heck - look at dr. hawking - confined to a wheelchair but extremely brilliant.

shawn

DjaugheOld · March 15th, 2005, 07:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by swd1974

There was a great movie about this sort of thing with Uma Thurman in it I think. Great movie. Very good look at what the future can hold.

EDIT:

Let me ask you. If you owned a company and had a choice between 2 qualified applicants for CIO and was able to see their genetics and one was going to have a heart attack at 41 and the other a very long healthy life who would you hire?

Gattica was indeed a good movie.

Did you mean CEO?

Assuming I was freely given the genetic records alot of factors would come into play depending on the job.

If I was looking fer someone to take over a health club or something...perhaps I would go for the "healthy life" candidate.

On the flip side if the "heart attack" candidate could turn a negative into a positive by leading through his medical problem through prevention (eating healthy, excersise)..that might be more conducive to bringing in unhealthy people to the gym and better business.

DjaugheOld · March 15th, 2005, 07:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FischerKing

i'll bite - character is at the top of my list, not necessarily health. heck - look at dr. hawking - confined to a wheelchair but extremely brilliant.

shawn

Good example.

Even steven hawkins (sp?) admitted he woulda have been a slacker had he let the disease consume him...instead he used it as motivation.

Doctors at that time predicted he wouldn't make it to his 30's...and yet here is another example of someone refusing to quit on life.

CaptTurbo · March 15th, 2005, 07:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Djaughe

Gattica was indeed a good movie.

Did you mean CEO?

Assuming I was freely given the genetic records alot of factors would come into play depending on the job.

If I was looking fer someone to take over a health club or something...perhaps I would go for the "healthy life" candidate.

On the flip side if the "heart attack" candidate could turn a negative into a positive by leading through his medical problem through prevention (eating healthy, excersise)..that might be more conducive to bringing in unhealthy people to the gym and better business.

No I meant CIO (Chief Information Officer)

I think alot of you are folling yourselves. I m not talking about simply being confined to a wheelchair. That doesnt stop you from working.

I am talking about 2 candidates. One has a specified number of heart beats to live (estimate 41 years worth) the other is a picture of health, will never be sick, never have any illnesses.

Your telling me you take the one that will die early, fully knowing you will bleed through the nose on health care and lost work over the heathly one that is certified to live 90 years with 0 health problems.

PortlandCardFan · March 15th, 2005, 07:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by swd1974

No I meant CIO (Chief Information Officer)

I think alot of you are folling yourselves. I m not talking about simply being confined to a wheelchair. That doesnt stop you from working.

I am talking about 2 candidates. One has a specified number of heart beats to live (estimate 41 years worth) the other is a picture of health, will never be sick, never have any illnesses.

Your telling me you take the one that will die early, fully knowing you will bleed through the nose on health care and lost work over the heathly one that is certified to live 90 years with 0 health problems.

Sure...why not?

Use the guy that is going to kick the bucket if he is the better canidate to get the job done. If That gives you 5 years of service then so be it. You will already know when he is going to die so you can be ready to bring in the next victim... I mean employee.

Dback Jon · March 15th, 2005, 07:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by swd1974

No I meant CIO (Chief Information Officer)

I think alot of you are folling yourselves. I m not talking about simply being confined to a wheelchair. That doesnt stop you from working.

I am talking about 2 candidates. One has a specified number of heart beats to live (estimate 41 years worth) the other is a picture of health, will never be sick, never have any illnesses.

Your telling me you take the one that will die early, fully knowing you will bleed through the nose on health care and lost work over the heathly one that is certified to live 90 years with 0 health problems.

How can you say you know he will die? Even with heart problems, there is no set number of beats left - he could extend his life with good diet, drugs, etc.

And the "healthy" one could die in a skiing accident his next vacation after you hire him.

CaptTurbo · March 15th, 2005, 08:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dback Jon

How can you say you know he will die? Even with heart problems, there is no set number of beats left - he could extend his life with good diet, drugs, etc.
.

how do you know? Do you assume we have reached the limits of "reding" someones dna and genetics? I think not. We may one day be able to see what organs will fail when and what major diseases you will (read not maybe) have.

This would cost compnaies billions in coverage and sick time. To say a company wouldnt care is not truthfull. You may say sure you would to be pc but I highly doubt it if it is your company.

FischerKing · March 15th, 2005, 08:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by swd1974

Let me ask you. If you owned a company and had a choice between 2 qualified applicants for CIO and was able to see their genetics and one was going to have a heart attack at 41 and the other a very long healthy life who would you hire?

you?

shawn

Dback Jon · March 15th, 2005, 08:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by swd1974

how do you know? Do you assume we have reached the limits of "reding" someones dna and genetics? I think not. We may one day be able to see what organs will fail when and what major diseases you will (read not maybe) have.

This would cost compnaies billions in coverage and sick time. To say a company wouldnt care is not truthfull. You may say sure you would to be pc but I highly doubt it if it is your company.

And you can't predict when some one is going to get a virus, catch a cold, etc.

I have "genetic" risks - heart disease runs in the family, I have allergies and asthma, etc. I miss less time due to illness than almost anyone else in my company - because I take care of myself. The medication that I take for allergies and asthma costs the company far less than my "healthy" co-worker, who just tore her ACL skiing, and needs surgery, and will miss two weeks of work. Or the other co-workers with kids that are constantly getting sick from all the crap their kids bring home from work.

CaptTurbo · March 15th, 2005, 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dback Jon

And you can't predict when some one is going to get a virus, catch a cold, etc.

I have "genetic" risks - heart disease runs in the family, I have allergies and asthma, etc. I miss less time due to illness than almost anyone else in my company - because I take care of myself. The medication that I take for allergies and asthma costs the company far less than my "healthy" co-worker, who just tore her ACL skiing, and needs surgery, and will miss two weeks of work. Or the other co-workers with kids that are constantly getting sick from all the crap their kids bring home from work.

im not disputing accidents. They happen. Im talking about having a gene report or dna report showing exactly when organs will fail or other things that technology doesnt exist yet for but may very well in the next 25 years.

Dont use todays medicine with what may be available tomorrow. My original question was in reagrds to "if" we were able to who would you hire. I know your answer you just wont give it lol

Dback Jon · March 15th, 2005, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by swd1974

im not disputing accidents. They happen. Im talking about having a gene report or dna report showing exactly when organs will fail or other things that technology doesnt exist yet for but may very well in the next 25 years.

Dont use todays medicine with what may be available tomorrow. My original question was in reagrds to "if" we were able to who would you hire. I know your answer you just wont give it lol

I would hire the best candidate, regardless.

40yearfan · March 15th, 2005, 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by swd1974

No I meant CIO (Chief Information Officer)

I think alot of you are folling yourselves. I m not talking about simply being confined to a wheelchair. That doesnt stop you from working.

I am talking about 2 candidates. One has a specified number of heart beats to live (estimate 41 years worth) the other is a picture of health, will never be sick, never have any illnesses.

Your telling me you take the one that will die early, fully knowing you will bleed through the nose on health care and lost work over the heathly one that is certified to live 90 years with 0 health problems.

swd, genetics cannot predict the future. They can only give you probabilities. If you (as an employer) know that the guy has genetic problems and might die young, that person would also be aware of his condition and would take steps to alleviate the condition.

Medical records today are not available to employers and I don't forsee anywhere in the future where they will become available, so I see this as basically a dead issue.