The likely financial effects on individuals,industry and commerce of the use of genetic information.

In this paper I look at the financial implications of genetic testing, particularly in the employment and pensions fields. I have generally not covered life insurance, as that is covered in other papers in this Discussion Meeting. However, the issues are similar, although the emphasis is different. Inevitably there is an element of speculation involved; genetic testing is in its infancy and so we cannot predict either what information we will be able to obtain through genetic testing, nor the uses that may be devised for this information.     

Ethical issues in human genome research.

In addition to provocative questions about science policy, research on the human genome will generate important ethical questions in at least three categories. First, the possibility of greatly increased genetic information about individuals and populations will require choices to be made about what that information should be and about who should control the generation and dissemination of genetic information. Presymptomatic testing, carrier screening, workplace genetic screening, and testing by insurance companies pose significant ethical problems. Second, the burgeoning ability to manipulate human genotypes and phenotypes raises a number of important ethical questions. Third, increasing knowledge about genetic contributions to ethically and politically significant traits and behaviors will challenge our self-understanding and social institutions.     

Reassessing insurers' access to genetic information: genetic privacy, ignorance, and injustice

Many countries have imposed strict regulations on the genetic information to which insurers have access. Commentators have warned against the emerging body of legislation for different reasons. This paper demonstrates that, when confronted with the argument that genetic information should be available to insurers for health insurance underwriting purposes, one should avoid appeals to rights of genetic privacy and genetic ignorance. The principle of equality of opportunity may nevertheless warrant restrictions. A choice-based account of this principle implies that it is unfair to hold people responsible for the consequences of the genetic lottery, since we have no choice in selecting our genotype or the expression of it. However appealing, this view does not take us all the way to an adequate justification of inaccessibility of genetic information. A contractarian account, suggesting that health is a condition of opportunity and that healthcare is an essential good, seems more promising. I conclude that if or when predictive medical tests (such as genetic tests) are developed with significant actuarial value, individuals have less reason to accept as fair institutions that limit access to healthcare on the grounds of risk status. Given the assumption that a division of risk pools in accordance with a rough estimate of people's level of (genetic) risk will occur, fairness and justice favour universal health insurance based on solidarity.     

Insurance and genetic testing: where are we now?

Basic research will spur development of genetic tests that are capable of presymptomatic prediction of disease, disability, and premature death in presently asymptomatic individuals. Concerns have been expressed about potential harms related to the use of genetic test results, especially loss of confidentiality, eugenics, and discrimination. Existing laws and administrative policies may not be sufficient to assure that genetic information is used fairly. To provide factual information and conceptual principles upon which sound social policy can be based, the Human Genome Initiative established an Ethical, Legal, and Social Issues Program. Among the first areas to be identified as a priority for study was insurance. This paper provides a review of life, health, and disability insurance systems, including basic principles, risk classification, and market and regulatory issues, and examines the potential impact of genetic information on the insurance industry.     

Genetic testing and insurance. The Ad Hoc Committee on Genetic Testing/Insurance Issues.

The rapid expansion of opportunities for genetic testing has been accompanied by complex questions about the appropriate relationships between providers, patients, and insurers. Some of these questions involve large public-policy decisions, such as whether the government should guarantee access to health care for all citizens. Universal access to health care, without regard to past, present, or future risk of disease, could eliminate risk-oriented underwriting in health-care coverage. A positive response to that question will ameliorate other problems. Until universal access is reality, genetic testing and genetic diagnosis will raise important issues for the practicing geneticist. How much does a client need to know about insurance implications before consenting to a genetic test? Should patients be counseled to purchase insurance before being tested? Should genetic information be excluded from medical records before their release to insurance companies for routine reimbursements or underwriting? What are the ethical and legal responsibilities of the geneticist?     

A survey of medical directors of life insurance companies concerning use of genetic information.

Rapid advances in our ability to test persons presymptomatically for genetic diseases have generated increasing concern that genetic information will be abused by insurance companies. Reasoning that the insurance companies may have the strongest interest in using genetic data and that the medical directors of those companies with responsibility for rating applicants would be a good source of information on the use of such data, we conducted a large survey of medical directors of North American life insurance companies. We received responses from 27 medical directors. Our results suggest that (1) few insurers perform genetic tests on applicants, but most are interested in accessing genetic test information about applicants that already exists; (2) the degree of insurers' interest in using genetic test results may depend on the face amount of the policy applied for and on the specificity and sensitivity of the test; (3) many companies employ underwriting guidelines with respect to certain genetic conditions but may not always have specific actuarial data in house to support their rating decisions; (4) a considerable degree of subjectivity is involved in most insurers' rating decisions; and (5) some of the medical directors who responded to our survey are not fully informed about certain basic principles of medical genetics.     

Civilian and military genetics: nondiscrimination policy in a post-GINA world

Evidence is emerging of a growing societal consensus about appropriate and inappropriate uses of genetic information. The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 provides new legal protections to Americans by prohibiting the discriminatory use of genetic information by health insurers and employers. Additionally, the United States military recently created new policies for fair use of genetic information in the determination of benefits for servicemen and servicewomen leaving military service. Although critical issues remain, such as the potential for genetic information to be used to deny people other forms of insurance, and how the military will use genetic medicine overall, significant progress has been made.     

Empowering international canine inherited disorder management

The mapping of the canine genome and the study of canine breed genomic architecture has revolutionized the discovery of genetic tests for inherited disorders in dogs. As the genetics underlying complex disorders are revealed, canine breeders and their registering organisations will be required to understand genetics in a much more sophisticated way. To facilitate the management of genetic disorders in the era of new complex information, we consider how best to apply the results of new research and analytical techniques to benefit the wider canine breeding community with the aims of improving canine health and maintaining benevolent genetic diversity. If this is not done, there is a serious risk that expensive and valuable genetic research will remain unused or be misused to the detriment of breeds. In this review, we make a case for the formation of an international organisation that will exist as a central repository for breed-based genetic analysis and information sharing. This organisation ("Inter-Dog") could be modelled on a similar organisation that is monitoring genetic improvement of dairy cattle. The formation of such an organisation will require the collaboration of international kennel management organisations, researchers, and agencies offering genetic testing services.     

Genetic information and insurance: some ethical issues.

Life is risky, and insurance provides one of the best developed ways of controlling risks. By pooling, and so transferring risks, those who turn out to suffer antecedently uncertain harms can be assured in advance that they will be helped if those harms arise; they can then plan their lives and activities with confidence that they are less at the mercy of ill fortune. Both publicly organized and commercial insurance can organize the pooling of risk in ways that are beneficial for all concerned. They provide standard ways of securing fundamental ethical values such as solidarity and mutuality. Although policy holders do not know or contract with one another, each benefits from the contribution of others to a shared scheme for pooling and so controlling risk. Although there is a limit to the degree to which commercially-based insurance, where premiums depend on risk level, can go beyond mutuality towards solidarity, in practice it too often achieves a measure of solidarity by taking a broad brush approach to pooling risk. However, the ordinary practices of insurance, and in particular of commercial insurance, also raise ethical questions. These may be put in simple terms by contrasting the way in which an insurance market discriminates between different people, on the basis of characteristics that (supposedly) determine their risk level, and our frequent abhorrence of discrimination, in particular on the basis on religious, racial and gender characteristics. Are the discriminations on which insurance practice relies upon as standard acceptable or not? The increasing availability of genetic information, which testing (of individuals) and screening (of populations) may provide, could lend urgency to these questions. Genetic information may provide a way of obtaining more accurate assessment of individual risks to health and life. This information could be used to discriminate more finely between the risk levels of different individuals, and then to alter the availability and the costs of health, life and unemployment insurance to them. Since all of these forms of insurance bear very directly on the way most people live, it will matter to them how (if at all) insurers take account of genetic information. Will use of this information improve or damage the capacity of insurance to provide confidence in the face of uncertain harms, and help if they happen? Will it discriminate in acceptable or in unacceptable ways? Will it support or damage the sorts of mutuality and solidarity various sorts of insurance schemes have successfully institutionalized?     

GENETIC HARM: BITTEN BY THE BODY THAT KEEPS YOU?

... We must attempt to explain, how, if ever, our existence may harm us. To address this and the other questions raised, I propose to examine what constitutes harm and whether it makes sense to say that our genetic makeup may harm us. To do this I will describe three approaches to the problem of describing the status of negative effects our genes have upon us, which I have named the "technical harm" view, the "constitutive" view, and the "harmful conditions" view. On the technical harm view, the standard definitions of harm are applied to genetic disposition in an attempt to couch genetic defects or flaws in terms of harming. The constitutive view rejects applying the concept of harm to genetic disposition on the grounds that it is impossible to separate genetic disposition from individual identity. Lastly, the harmful conditions view, which I conclude is the most successful of the three, focuses on the tendency of certain genetic dispositions to cause harm in the future and thus avoids what I will argue are the "context" shortcomings of the other two approaches. To conclude the discussion I will very briefly analyze the ramifications of a harmful conditions view for the concept of genetic disease and the prospects for genetic counseling, gene therapy, and reproductive decision making.     

Genetic discrimination in insurance and employment

The results of the Human Genome project will eventually have a great impact on medicine. However, the expansion of genetic testing due to these results exacerbates ethical, legal, and economic problems related to the project even today. Virtually free access to the data of testing would present an encroachment on personal freedom, since it may lead to discrimination based on genetic characteristics, i.e., genetic discrimination. Examples of this discrimination are already known; they include unsubstantiated refusals to employ carriers of certain alleles and denials of life or health insurance coverage and the ability to adopt a child. The use of genetic information in the insurance and employment fields is of primary concern due to its economic importance. Consumers consider genetic discrimination in these areas to be intolerable moral and social injustice. Genetic discrimination may eventually lead to the formation of a class of people who cannot buy an insurance policy, and, in the employment field, rejection of persons with "undesirable" genes infringes on citizens' rights to equal opportunity. However, selection for genetic characteristics in employment is justified if these characteristics determine sensitivity to occupational hazards.     

Society and ethics - the genetics of disease

Established guidance for the protection of human subjects in research has provided the framework for research and clinical practice in genetics. Three key principles to emerge are the requirements for consent, privacy and confidentiality. However, recent research on genetic susceptibility to common diseases indicates that it may be more difficult to decide if and when genetic testing will be appropriate. Risks of disease may be low and interventions may not be available. Today, debate is primarily focussed on ethical issues raised by the use and storage of genetic information. One of the earliest experiences of genetic testing for some people is likely to be in the area of pharmacogenetics. Debate about ethical issues has been focused on the implications of patient stratification, particularly with regard to the availability of medicines for small groups and the significance of racial variation in response to medicines. The possible use of personal genetic information by insurance companies and employers has also been an issue that legislators have taken seriously.     

Coverage of genetic technologies under national health reform.

This article examines the extent to which the technologies expected to emerge from genetic research are likely to be covered under Government-mandated health insurance programs such as those being proposed by advocates of national health reform. Genetic technologies are divided into three broad categories; genetic information services, including screening, testing, and counseling; experimental technologies; and gene therapy. This article concludes that coverage of these technologies under national health reform is uncertain. The basic benefits packages provided for in the major health reform plans are likely to provide partial coverage of experimental technologies; relatively broad coverage of information services; and varying coverage of gene therapies, on the basis of an evaluation of their costs, benefits, and the degree to which they raise objections on political and religious grounds. Genetic services that are not included in the basic benefits package will be available only to those who can purchase supplemental insurance or to those who can purchase the services with personal funds. The resulting multitiered system of access to genetic services raises serious questions of fairness.     

Accepting Adoption’s Uncertainty: The Limited Ethics of Pre-Adoption Genetic Testing

An increasing number of children are adopted in the United States from countries where both medical care and environmental conditions are extremely poor. In response to worries about the accuracy of medical histories, prospective adoptive parents increasingly request genetic testing of children prior to adoption. Though a general consensus on the ethics of pre-adoption genetic testing (PAGT) argues against permitting genetic testing on children available for adoption that is not also permitted for children in general, a view gaining traction argues for expanding the tests permitted. The reasoning behind this view is that the State has a duty to provide a child with parents who are the best “match,” and thus all information that advances this end should be obtained. While the matching argument aims to promote the best interests of children, I show how it rests on the claim that what is in the best interests of children available for adoption is for prospective adoptive parents to have their genetic preferences satisfied such that the “genetics” of the children they end up adopting accurately reflects those preferences. Instead of protecting a vulnerable population, I conclude, PAGT contributes to the risks of harm such children face as it encourages people with strong genetic preferences to adopt children whose genetic backgrounds will always be uncertain.     

Teleogy and genes

My aim in this paper is to quickly sketch a teleological approach to the problem of isolating the impact of genes on phenotypic characters. I begin by arguing that it is a mistake to think that there will be only one analysis of genetic input suitable for all theoretical interests. My principle focus is Richard Dawkins' argument for genic selectionism. I argue that a teleological analysis of genetic input is what Dawkins requires to establish the right kind of mapping of gene onto phenotype. This comes at a certain cost, however. Accepting the analysis will threaten Dawkins' claims about the teleogogical priority of gene over phenotype.     

Informed consent and the misattributed paternity problem in genetic counseling

When misattributed paternity is discovered in the course of genetic testing, a genetic counselor is presented with a dilemma concerning whether to reveal this information to the clients. She is committed to treating the clients equally and enabling informed decision making, but disclosing the information may carry consequences for the woman that the counselor cannot judge in advance. A frequent suggestion aimed at avoiding this problem is to include the risk of discovering nonpaternity in the informed consent process for counseling. In this paper I argue that such a move does not resolve the problem, because the conflict hinges on the interpretation of equality on which the counselor operates. Given the principles of genetic counseling, neither construal of equality yields a satisfactory solution to the conflict. In fact, I conclude that including nonpaternity in informed consent is not endorsed by either view, and we are still left with the question of what to do should nonpaternity be discovered. I suggest a compromise position concerning disclosure, involving revealing relevant genetic information but withholding nonpaternity when possible.     

Designing babies: morally permissible ways to modify the human genome

My focus in this paper is the question of the moral acceptability of attempts to modify the human genome. Much of the debate in this area has revolved around the distinction between supposedly therapeutic modification on the one hand, and eugenic modification on the other. In the first part of the paper I reject some recent arguments against genetic engineering. In the second part I seek to distinguish between permissible and impermissible forms of intervention in such a way that does not appeal to the therapeutic/eugenic distinction. If I am right much of what we would intuitively call eugenic intervention will be morally acceptable. Central to my argument is an asymmetry in the way genetic engineers can influence a person's capacities on the one hand and life-goals on the other. Forms of genetic intervention that have a high probability of producing a mismatch of life-goals and capacities will be ruled out.     

Genetic equity

This paper proposes, elaborates and defends a principle of genetic equity. In doing so it articulates, explains and justifies what might be meant by the concept of 'human dignity' in a way that is clear, defensible and consistent with, but by no means the same as, the plethora of appeals to human dignity found in contemporary bioethics, and more particularly in international instruments on bioethics. We propose the following principle of genetic equity: humans are born equal; they are entitled to freedom from discrimination and equality of opportunity to flourish; genetic information may not be used to limit that equality.