I say a big “hell no.” Insurance is nothing but a pocket liner for people that have nothing at stake in your medical care (or your home burning down, or your car repairs, ect…). It is the biggest rip off of the century. Down with insurance companies, up with normal prices for services rendered.

Professors Holm’s reasoning is weak. He says that genetic information is no different then other information but does not explain why genetic information is no different then other information. So why would our genetic information be the same as other information, and why would it be different? Reasons why they are the same: the data is gathered by tests that show if you have a disease/disorder that needs treatment. This is no different then getting a CT done to show you have a brain tumor. The reasons why they are different: if you are born with a genetic condition (be it chromosomally, biochemical, or genetic), you can be denied insurance coverage…thus no coverage for needed treatment. Why would an insurance company put you under a policy when you will cost more money then the company can make of you? That is basic economics. However, it is ethically incorrect to deny health coverage to a person because they were born with a genetic condition. Moreover, legally, an insurance company will no longer have the legal right to deny health coverage once the Non-Discrimination Bill is signed into law. I think employers have a stronger legal stance for knowing a persons genetic information then an insurance company does, but it is still unethical to deny a person a job based on their genetic information….even though a person in better health might be a better fit for a certain position. You don’t want a president who has a bad heart condition or a mental disorder (a president needs to be mentally strong- I’m talking about intelligence).

The underpinning of Professor Ashcroft’s reasoning is a very basic and a strong argument. Sometimes the most basic argument is the strongest.

My personal answer is no!

In a somewhat non-related note, I need to express my opinion about something on a website that I know gets a lot of traffic. With genetic testing gaining a strong hold in medical care, we will be seeing more and more people offering genetic testing and interpreting the information (family history and test results) that are not trained to perform these very complex objectives. Many physicians will start offering genetic testing and telling a patient they have this type of cancer based on the genetic test (without the patient seeing a genetics expert..i.e, genetic counselor). This could result in errors for patients that need to be seen by experts to know if they need the testing done, what management should be given (non-directive of course), and what the risk of recurrence is and whether the disorder they have is actually a result of their genetic material. For example, how many non-trained genetic professionals will be able to tell when a couple with no previous family history of a genetic condition that has two children affected with the same genetic condition tell if the family history shows an autosomal recessive or autosmomal dominate with one of the parents being a germinal mosaic? Would the average physician even understand what the example means that I just gave?

So if patients are diagnosed with a genetic condition based on a genetic test and a family history was done, if the family history interpretation is incorrect, this will result in MAJOR ERRONEOUS RISK CALCULATIONS FOR FUTURE OFFSPRING. If insurance companies were able to use your genetic information and an error occurs in the example I provided, then a person could get denied health coverage, or taken off a certain policy because they are high risk when in fact they are at low risk.

en Argentina, eso jamas, pero jamas! va a pasar, porque a niade le interesa.
Eso es demaciado adelantado me parece

From the layman’s viewpoint, and a personal viewpoint, I’d say, NO. I’d want to know, too, more about how the insurance companies are going to use this information.

[...] the Eye On DNA article, Do Insurance Companies Have a Right to Your DNA?, Professor Richard Ashcroft and Professor Søren Holm debate the issue. Category : [...]

Hi,

Sorry about this post. I was not able to send the article I found today at the library I’m at. So this is the only way I can get the link to you.

I think you might find this to be an interesting read:http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/reprint/26/3/704

Once you get the article, please delete this post as it does not fit the purpose of this thread. Thanks!

Much ado about (not much)…

I’m also unconvinced that it’s any kind of problem: there seems to be a lot of fear-mongering on the issue in Dr Lei’s post (although, to be fair, it’s mostly in the comments section, by folks who are woefuly ignorant of the underwriting process). …

[...] Stern at InsureBlog educates us about genes and insurance underwriting. He thinks there’s nothing to get up in arms about. I admit to being rather ignorant about [...]

[...] “Should genetic information be disclosed to insurance companies?” The U.S. and the U.K. seem to be taking opposite perspectives. What do you think? Hsien’s taking a poll at Eye on DNA. Whether you’re a genetics professional or genetics enthusiast, read her post and weigh-in. [...]

[...] of a DNA database in Arizona to store DNA data on criminals. They’re worried about privacy, insurance coverage, and civil rights [...]

[...] privacy is an issue involving government regulations, health insurance, and societal attitudes. But it is also an issue that affects families. None of us hold all the [...]

Definitely NO. Genetic tests are different from simple biochemical test - it has a long term implication and influences ALL family members. I remind my patients that they are not oblidged to disclose their test result (eg BRCA mutation)- they are oblidged to provide only a family history for life insurance companies.

[...] June, BMJ debated the use of genetic information to determine insurance eligibility. I, along with other readers, sided with those who believe that [...]

just wondering, how and where are these misinterpretations of DNA being made?

not sure if comment was added cant find
where/how are these misinterpretations of DNA made .. very interesting