American Council on Science and Health American Council on Science and Health
About
ACSH		 ¥ Contact
ACSH		 ¥ Support
ACSH		 ¥ My
ACSH		 ¥ Advanced
Search		  
ACSH.org   Home   . .   Health Issues   . .   News Center   . .   Publications   . .   Events   . .   FactsAndFears   .  

Health Facts And Fears

Archives >

Printer Format icon Printer Format
E-mail Information icon E-mail Information
May 1, 2008

Congress Votes to Ban Genetic Discrimination

By Jeff Stier, Esq.

Congress has now passed legislation to forbid employers and insurance companies of "discriminating" against people on the basis of information gleaned from tests of their genetic proclivity for disease.  I haven't studied this in depth, but forbidding the marketplace to use valid information rubs me the wrong way.

Wouldn't the use of such information allow people with fewer genetic risk factors to obtain less expensive (and more accurately priced) insurance?  How is this different from charging smokers more for health insurance?  Is just that smoking is voluntary but we refuse to use information caused by involuntary factors?

Calling it genetic "discrimination" is in itself discriminatory/conclusory.  Perhaps offering discounts to those without known genetic risk factors would serve to encourage people to get the tests -- and if they tested positive, they'd be better prepared to take protective action where possible.

I guess I'm in minority on this issue, though: No Senators voted against the bill, and the vote in the House was 414-1, with only Rep. Ron Paul opposed.


Jeff Stier is an associate director of the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH.org, HealthFactsAndFears.com).

Visitor Responses

Carl V Phillips (May 2, 2008)

Jeff, I think you are on the wrong side of this one. Insurance (actual insurance, not the mere paying for non-random costs that sometimes is mistakenly called insurance) depends on ignorance. We can only have pooling of costs across people with different levels of risks when we do not know too much about what those risks are. Some information is good (e.g., high risk vs. low risk driver - makes things more fair but still allows pooling because even the high risk driver is not likely to have a major crash in a given year). But too much information and there is no insurance. Of course, this is a pretty good case for just giving up on private insurance for health....

As for employment discrimination, I guess there is not such a clear economic case. Then it becomes more an issues of beliefs about what our society should be like. As you note, when something is considered "discrimination", we usually object to it.


Drawing of Todd Seavey


About the Editor:
Todd Seavey

is Director of Publications at ACSH and edits FactsAndFears.  His opinions are not necessarily ACSH's.

He can be reached at seavey [at] acsh.org.
Subscribe to ACSH.org RSS  FactsAndFears posts on YOUR site
Search Archives Icon for Search
Search

Icon for Browse Archives Browse Archives

Sign In Icon for Sign In

Username:

Password:

Sign In Now >>

Forget your password?

Register

Why register with ACSH?
You'll be able to:
¥ Post comments to articles
¥ Subscribe to e-bulletin
¥ Receive immediate or scheduled updates


Register Now >>

¥ (from ACSH) theScooponSmoking.org
¥ aBetterEarth.org
¥ AgBioWorld
¥ American Justice Partnership
¥ Anti-Quackery and Science Blog
¥ Anti-Quackery Ring
¥ BiomonitoringInfo.org
¥ Blogborygmi.com (Nick Gene & co.)
¥ CalorieLab
¥ The Cancer Blog
¥ CAST on transgenic animals
¥ Catallarchy (econ, etc.)
¥ Competitive Enterprise Institute
¥ Consumer Guide to Bariatric Surgery
¥ ConsumerFreedom.com
¥ Debunkers.org
¥ Diet-Blog.com
¥ Dynamist/Virginia Postrel
¥ Fishscam
¥ Freakonomics
¥ GruntDoc
¥ Health Beat (medical news/research)
¥ Health Business Blog
¥ Health Intelligence Network blog
¥ In the Pipeline (drugs per Derek Lowe)
¥ Infography on Medical Care: Quacks, Quackery
¥ Institute of Ideas
¥ JunkScience.com (Steve Milloy)
¥ MedMusings
¥ National Council Against Health Fraud
¥ New Doctor
¥ Overlawyered.com
¥ ParkinsonsHealth
¥ Quackbusters
¥ Quackfiles
¥ Quackfiles.blogspot.com
¥ Quackwatch
¥ James Randi, ultimate skeptic
¥ Rangel, M.D.
¥ Reason (including Seavey pieces)
¥ SAGEcrossroads.net (aging)
¥ Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine
¥ Science Media Centre
¥ Sense About Science
¥ Skeptic Magazine
¥ Skeptic Ring
¥ Skeptical Inquirer/CSICOP
¥ Spiked-Online
¥ TCS Daily (Europe)
¥ TCS Daily (U.S.)
¥ 3 Billion and Counting (malaria docu. w/Ross)
¥ Tobacco Survivors United
¥ TobaccoAnalysis blog
¥ Urban Legends per Snopes
¥ US News Best Health Heart Center
¥ US News Lung Cancer Center
¥ Volokh.com (blog on law, econ, polisci)
¥ Washington Legal Foundation
¥ WhyBiotech (Council for Biotechnology Info.)
¥ WhyQuit.com (case studies, message boards, etc.)
¥ Dr. Carl Winter (health song-parodies)
¥ aWorldConnected.org (benefits of globalization)


TO VIEW AND MAKE COMMENTS ON THE ARTICLES ABOVE (OR OTHERS), "SIGN IN" AT THE RIGHT MARGIN.

AMERICAN COUNCIL ON SCIENCE AND HEALTH  |  1995 BROADWAY, 2ND FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10023-5860
TELEPHONE: (212) 362-7044  |  FAX: (212) 362-4919  |  E-MAIL: GEN. ORGANIZATION MAILBOX: acsh (at) acsh.org; IND. STAFFER: [last name or last name followed by first initial]@acsh.org 

Copyright © 1997-2004 American Council on Science and Health  |  Privacy Policy  |  All Rights Reserved.

Founded in 1978, ACSH is a consumer advocacy organization directed and advised by over 350 physicians, scientists and policy advisors. ACSH promotes the use of sound, peer-reviewed science in the formation of a full  spectrum of  public health policies, including those related to food, pharmaceuticals, environmental chemicals, lifestyle factors, consumer products and terrorism preparedness and response.