Pink Slip In Your Genes 151
An AC pointed us to this story about genetic tests: An article in Scientific American discusses the growing evidence that employers hire and fire based on genetic tests. It highlights the story of a woman whose life was probably saved by a simple genetic test. Unfortunately, the same test also cost her her job and health insurance.
F0r Pr0fit is the main problem with discrimination (Score:1)
It's not as though a national health care system needs to worry about underwriting risk or worry about maximizing corporate profits by any means possible including denial of claims or discriminating against your genes.
I'm a free marketeer, who recognizes the conflict going on here.. we need national guarantees against genetic discrimination. Would such a law be enforceable, or do we need to move to a national healthcare system all together?
Information wants to be free (Score:1)
Re:Screening Processes (Score:1)
My point, which you apparently didn't get, is that employers already make decisions about your suitability for jobs based on physical appearance: the crudest form of genetic screening possible. Real scientific genetic screening isn't going to change how employers act, it just gives them some real data to work with rather than bad opinions and misguided prejudices. This can only be better for the employer and the employee. I certainly wouldn't want to work in a high-stress situation if it turned out I had a genetic tendency to die quickly from heart failure in high-stress situations!
Because rejecting an unfit and uncoordinated slob applying for an aerobics instructor position is a form of discrimination. And I'm sure it's a form that nobody here would disagree with.
The 3 examples I gave all show that physical characteristics are sometimes important to the job. It doesn't take much intelligence to imagine that there are MANY jobs where genetic screening can help employers make better choices. Would you want a pilot who suffers from epilepsy? How about a childcare worker with a tendency to launch into violent fits of rage? Or a trained athelete with heart problems? How about a male masseur applying for a position in a "womens only" gym?
Discrimination isn't terrible. It can be used in terrible ways (to discriminate based on skin colour where skin colour is irrelevant) but it's also possible to discriminate in positive ways.
Re:Doesn't affect me... (Score:1)
Re:Story is self-contradictory (Score:1)
just a minor detail... (Score:1)
Why should the employer be liable? (Score:1)
If anything, the insurance companies should be liable for the risk, and they should be the ones negotiating the policies with the employers and their employees. Insurance companies are in the business of selling risk, and can do so. A typical employer is not, and should not be liable for high costs of your medical bills.
It sickens me to hear of people who would simply pass their problems off to their employers, and demand that THEY be the ones responsible for your bad health.
Folks, take responsibility for your own well-being. If an employer does not want to hire you based on your high risk of undue expense, that's their right. Take it up with the insurance companies, who are really the ones dicating terms..
What was the company? Lets just boycott them. (Score:1)
I'll just add them to my boycott list, right after amazon. (I'd rather spend my money at barnes and noble..)
People get the government they deserve... (Score:1)
Stupid things like that don't happen when the State pays for health-care, and since State health-care doesn't have to turn a profit and is universal, it is much cheaper because there are no checks to see if one is insured for a given procedure, and no profit to shareholders.
Typically, Canada's universal health care costs 60% of what it costs to americans per capita, and EVERYBODY is covered.
--
Game over, 2000!
Re:Screening Processes (Score:1)
The solution is that health care should *NOT* be provided by employers. (I don't believe it should be provided by the government either, I would like to have a public marketplace where individuals buy insurance, and insurance only covers real risks, not routine care, but that's a whole other debate of course.)
Re:Screening Processes (Score:1)
How'd you like to be branded as a risk, and not be able to get any job doing anything?
It's not an issue of the wrong person for the job; the scenario is that a person can be marked the wrong person for *any* job.
Re:Have we put an end to human evolution? (Score:1)
That's funny, I hadn't even thought of "ass-fucking" until you brought it up. You might want to take that chip off your shoulder before it falls off and hurts someone.
From what I have read, the main problem in Africa is heterosexual sexual promiscuity, not IV drug use or unsafe homosexual sex.
Re:Screening Processes (Score:1)
The truth is nobody is genetically perfect and given certain conditions this genetic differences could actually prove positive and creating a genetic underclass would actually make society a worse place to live - remember this is exactly what Hitler wanted to do with his Erian race.
Employers should only be allowed to choose their employees based on their ability to do the job, not how they will be in 50 years, especially since most people don't stay in the same job for more than 3 years in many cases.
Re:socialism: the solution to modern medicine's il (Score:1)
The problem here isn't privacy. According to the article, the woman's life was probably saved by the test. This suggests that making genetic information widely available can be a Good Thing.
So the problem here is not protecting one's privacy; the problem is allowing everyone to have medical treatment should they need it. It is in an insurance company's interest to have as much information about a prospective customer as possible, in order to best estimate how much that person is likely to cost them.
Now, we as a society have decided that people are entitled to certain goodies just by virtue of existing: in the case of an invasion, everyone is protected by the military. If you lose your job, even though your own fault, you can collect unemployment insurance that all of us pay for.
A national health care plan, if properly done, should be just an extension of this idea: everyone is entitled to some minimum level of health care, just by virtue of being alive. This could be simply an uber-insurance plan, in which everyone automatically gets some minimum level of coverage (if you break your leg, the uber-plan pays for your cast), and everyone pays for it, through taxes.
This should not, as some have feared, put existing insurance companies out of business: they would now be in the business of providing more and better treatment than the uber-plan covers (e.g., crutches, pain-killers, etc.). They should then, of course, charge correspondingly less, which should balance out the higher taxes.
One important side effect of this system would be that it would no longer be in the insurer's interest to turn a person away completely, since everyone would be minimally covered by the common plan.
The discrimination issue would then become, "Bob is likely to get $DISEASE. If I hire Bob, he will be out sick a lot and cost us productivity." This used to be an argument against hiring women in certain positions (s/$DISEASE/pregnancy/), but people got over it.
We look to private industry for efficiency, and to the government for fairness. In this case, we're looking for fairness.
I was always going to be something someday. And eventually, they're going to find out what that is.
-- Pat Cadigan, "My Brother's Keeper"
Beethoven would be denied 'composership' (Score:1)
Government health care **IS** the only answer (Score:1)
I.E. Most of yapping about 4 month waits for heart surgery are complete nonsense. Yes, if you look up the surgical database you might see a wait, but most doctors sign up their patients at the first sign of trouble and then do the tests to determine whether a patient needs surgery, MOST doctors then pull the patients off the DB. The result is a wait of usually 2-3 weeks (depending on the patient condition) and only if it is non-threatening. Whenever a patient's condition listed as an critical, they will get surgery the next day as in any American hospital (assuming they have the insurance).
This is not to say there are instances where people didn't get surgery in time ***BUT*** the VAST majority do. The rate of survival for heart conditions is HIGHER in Canada then the US because there is no profitable benefit for hospitals to cram patients into surgery (for insurance $$$).
Problems have arisen because PEOPLE VOTE IN GOVERNMENTS WITH POLICAL MANDATES TO LESSEN THE MONIES GOING TOWARDS HEALTHCARE. Canadians spending only 2/3 the monies the US does on healthcare for 100% converage of all citizians. Don't blame the system when you specifically order a reduction in service.
Overall, I will take the Canadian healthcare system over the US -- I don't like the idea that fellow citizians should lose their livelihood or simply die because they (or their employers) don't have the monies to pay for healthcare. Within Government healthcare systems their is no tie-in between your job and your families health; only your job and your ability to do it!!! To force a person off the job because of the health of their children seems very very disturbing, something that is taken for granted in the US but raises the eyebrows of most other first world countries. I really love the US, enjoy its culture, cities, people (who are among the friendliest in the world) but regarding this issue -- it is a complete mystery for the rest of us to understand how you live with it.
Just my $0.02
Re:Think of it as evolution in action (Score:1)
<flame>Apparently you have failed to understand the mechanisms of ethical thought and action, so let me explain one of them to you as simply as possible.
Evolutionary process != moral imperitive.
Natural selection is a cruel, nasty and destructive process. Under no circumstances should we model our society after such a process, as it makes people cruel, nasty and destructive.
Now that you understand this, go grow a fscking heart.</flame>
Re:Doesn't affect me... (Score:1)
Re:I had something like this happen (Score:1)
But what the hell do I know, eh? : )
Re:Screening Processes (Score:1)
'Scuse me while I trip Godwin's Law here, but you might check into Himmler's eugenics experiments during the second world war. That was the most advanced research ever dedicated to creating your master race...the better to serve the corporate beast.
In other words, your idea is absolutely sickening.
Re:Screening Processes (Score:1)
Read my lips. Genotype DOES NOT guarantee fitness!
Re:Doesn't affect me... (Score:1)
I don't know whether insurance is "fair" or not. I do know that it's the only way a person could possibly get through a major medical catastrophe and remain financially solvent.
So, your point is correct. Insurance is not "fair", but it's designed not to be fair. You are purchasing security. If I am able to purchase security, any other person ought to be able to purchase security too. If somebody is not allowed to buy something because of a condition that they are born with, that's (in my non-binding legal opinion) illegal discrimination, just like discrimination based on race would be.
Re:What's the problem? (Score:1)
I don't get it. (Score:1)
To be honest, based on the evidence presented, I really don't see this as an issue. One lady believes she was discriminated against because of her genetic condition. This may be true but a single instance is not really a cause for concern. The evidence pointing towards genetic discrimination is anecdotal and unconvincing. How would an employer benefit from discriminating against a person based on some predilection for genetic disorder? What possible financial benefit would an employer see by denying himself the opportunity to hire a potentially productive individual? The only possible explanation could be employee turnover. Granted, employee death is one cause of turnover, but I would imagine it is far less likely to occur, even in the face of a possible genetic disorder, then other causes of turnover.
Re:Screening Processes (Score:1)
I would recommend not taking employment as a ditch digger. Are you familiar with the concept of supply and demand? It's a fairly simple capitalist concept, it works like this: The more things are in demand, the greater the cost. The less things are in supply, the greater the cost. People with skillsets that are in small supply and great demand have an easy time of it when looking for a job. It is the responsibility of the individual to develop his skills such that they are a salable product in a capitalist environment.
For myself, I could be on the verge of death with some highly communicable disease and still wouldn't have a problem finding employment in today's market.
Re:Screening Processes (Score:1)
Sometimes we forget that corporations and governments only exist to serve people, not the other way around.
Hmmm, I think I just thought up a new sig.
Re:Screening Processes (Score:1)
In other words, if it's going to cost $20K/year to keep you alive, it's not going to be worth it for ANY insurance company that isn't charging you at least $22K/year (need some profit in there after bookkeeping costs).
I don't see much of a real answer to this stastical delima than making Health Insurance coverage mandatory (i.e. nationalizing it).
--
Re:Screening Processes (Score:1)
The problem is with profit-based health insurance schemes, where you're only insurable as long as your insurer is getting more money out of you than they're paying for your health care. There is effectively no way to give the average person coverage against chronic-style illness under the US model of health insurance.
--
Loosing weight (off topic) (Score:1)
--
Re:Screening Processes (Score:1)
Treat someone like an enemy for long enough and -- sooner or later -- they'll get the hint.
--
Re:So what? (Score:1)
Perhaps a more valuable solution would be to mandate the grandfathering of employer health insurance -- If an employee leaves, then {s,}he gets to take the insurance with {him,her}. Only a small increase in premiums would be allowed -- to cover the increased paperwork caused by a single participant. Similarly, insurance companies shouldn't be able to jack up the premiums of a company much beyond the average increase in industry costs. In either case, the company would still be stuck with the sick customer.
The idea would be to force insurance companies to actually amortize the cost of acutely and chronically sick customers into their larger base, rather than forcing them out through massive fee increases.
--
Re:Have we put an end to human evolution? (Score:1)
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/
Re:Have we put an end to human evolution? (Score:1)
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/
My health in their hands? (Score:1)
Simple, reduced health care costs.
This may be a bit of a tangent, but when did people start expecting the companies they work for to care for their health? (By extension, when did people start expecting the government they live under to do the same?) If I smoke and drink and eat fatty foods (or engage in other dangerous activities, regardless of genetic predisposition), why does it fall on my employer to keep me from dying at 40? Sure, they wouldn't want to lose a valuable employee, but I would think that my own life is a little more valuable to me than it is to my employers.
A poster in another thread was saying their father got fired because they had a medical condition that cost over a million dollars to treat a year. Now does it really cost that much to treat, or does it cost that much because they can bill a company for it instead of a person? I wonder how strong a hold HMOs would have on poorly managed health care if they couldn't stick large companies for big bills.
Re:Wow (Score:1)
I wouldn't be surprised if some "diligent entrepreneur" started compiling databases of people diagnosed with the potential diseases and disorders. They already are doing it with other infornmation of ours. Why not do it with this too. Truth be known. This is just the tip of the iceburg of what could become a very serious problem.
Imagine a new drivers license that has more storage capacity than the current drivers licenses with magnetic strips. They code place all you things you have genetically diagnosed with on that new drivers liscence.
Socialized medicine... bad, bad, bad (Score:1)
The history of employee provided health care starts off in WW II when there were wage freezes and other socialist/fascist monkeying with the economy in order to get it into war footing. People couldn't find enough workers and the law prevented them from paying higher wages to bid up what was available (ironically enough, those who were unhealthy enough not to be accepted in the armed forces or the aged). The work around? Offer lavish benefits including health care.
The problem is that people got used to it and it stuck. The thing that keeps it going though is that the tax laws give employers preferential treatment over other health care financing methods such as self-pay.
So what do we have here, govt. interference screws up the medical system by introducing massive third-party pay situations and to nobody's surprise who knows economics, costs spiral out of control.
The fix isn't to go all the way to a socialized system which will kill R&D into new medicine and procedures but to eliminate the original government caused distortions and make healthcare available without employers being involved in any way.
DB
Re:Next up: Gattaca (Score:1)
Frankly, the 2nd amendment comes into play here. Not the way people think, with fearless teens fighting back the invading commies (what was that silly movie title?) but the simple statistical fact that if you grind a widely armed mass population down sufficiently, a certain number of them are simply going to commit suicide by randomly shooting some overlords.
They'll get stomped of course, but there goes all that genetic superiority into the meat locker all the same. The hypothetical ubermen would have to ease up to avoid carnage, at least until they can get the populace disarmed...
DB
Re:Testing is the issue, not genetics (Score:1)
I'm setting up my own company and frankly, I wouldn't test legal or not. I won't be doing drug tests either.
OTOH, you don't perform, you don't have a job.
DB
Re:Privatized Healthcare...even worse (Score:1)
Socialism is "least of all evils" only when you are short-sighted. The long-term destructiveness of the system is on display everywhere east of the old iron curtain. Government has never found a practical, efficient way to ration any economic goods, much less the really important stuff like healthcare. The free market can work, but fascistic corporatism (the current system) doesn't.
DB
Watch Gattaca (Score:1)
The movie demonstrates some of the outgrowths that have a high probability of occurence if we allow genetic testing to predetermine the ability/future of individuals. (This reminds me of a famous learning question. Do poor students do poorly because of genes, or do they do poorly because teachers/educators assume they are poor students and so don't push them as hard?)
Now, of course, genetic testing has it's uses, but it should most definetly not be used for discrimination in all but the most demanding jobs. (And even then, I would have grave reservations about a genetic test determining whether a fully qualified applicant was even able to train for a job.)
Don Armstrong -".naidnE elttiL etah I"
Re:Doesn't affect me... (Score:1)
Laws like this make sense only on the national level.
Re:Screening Processes (Score:1)
That's a hefty load of horse manure... I have worked several customer service jobs in my life & I know perfectly well I aid a company I work for at least as well as anyone else (in fact more so than many a 'healthy' person)... What you said is compeltely irrational for almost all genetic conditions (only a few rare wasting diseases might severely effect ones ability to do both the things you said). Please think again before posting such drivel...
Re:Loosing weight (off topic) (Score:1)
I'm a martial artist so I do perform regular exercise, so it's not like I'm some slob who never does anything...
story is not clear (Score:1)
I don't understand why the person in that story lost her job. Why were the results of that genetic test presented to her employer in the first place? If she just flat out told them, then it's stupidity on her part.
- SEAL
Re:Doesn't affect me... (Score:1)
The news article mentions blood tests specificially .. I wonder why they're so specific. This doesn't appear to prohibit your HR department from doing the Gattaca thing and picking up bits of your hair and skin from your keyboard.
I checked the Montgomery County web site and found the press release [mo.md.us] for the new law, but it didn't mention anything about just banning blood tests. Hmm.
zo.
ban interracial breeding?! (Score:1)
Banning interracial breeding will _lower_ the number of possible genetic combinations, not increase it. Keep in mind that even in a family of 7, all the kids aren't identical. It's the number of genes in a population, not any sort of purity that matters.
Besides, traditional 'races' are very superficial indicators of a gene pool.
Montgomery County doesn't have that problem (Score:1)
--
WorldServe Consulting [worldserve.net]
Re:Movies Predict The Future (Score:1)
Re:What's the problem? (Score:1)
Re:Wow (Score:1)
Re:Doesn't affect me... (Score:1)
(ahem)
(Yeah, right, leave the USA! NOT!!!!!)
========================
63,000 bugs in the code, 63,000 bugs,
ya get 1 whacked with a service pack,
Re:That's what you get. (Score:2)
Why would we want to trust the government to manage healthcare?
An understandable position. The U.S. government doesn't seem to be able to do anything efficiently.
On the other hand, why trust HMO's to manage our healthcare? Not only do they have a big beurocracy, but their primary incentive is to avoid actually supplying any healthcare.
The result is a giant catch-22 in health care: Increasingly, only those who are unlikely to need significant health care can afford it while those who are likely to need it will have it denied. The result is that a century of western medical progress is being ignored by increasing numbers of people in favor of affordable (and sometimes effective) folk medicine. It is actually to the point that middle class people WITH health insurance can end up insolvent due to one medical crisis. They then get to start over without health insurance. Surely, even the government can do no worse (perhaps not much better, but no worse).
The reasons for the problem are complex and inter-twined. One of them is a crazy court system that can't tell the difference between a competant doctor miraculously pulling a patient from the brink of death with only a 10% disability and a quack who manages to turn a minor medical incident into a lifetime disability. There's the fact that some medical research is just not profitable even though society as a whole stands to benefit from it. Some other products of research ARE profitable, but since patients literally can't live without them, corperates are free to charge astronomical prices. There's a screwed up patent office that lets companies prospect nature for existing cures (some of which are part of existing folk medicine) and patent them as if they custom tailored the molecules themselves (rather than limiting them to a more modest profit in line with a more modest investment).
I'm not willing to sell off all my assets in the interests of an unfair socialist system under the guise of humane health care.
You better hope you never get seriously ill. If you do, you will have the choice: sell off all of your assets or die.
Re:socialism: the solution to modern medicine's il (Score:2)
When dealing with the issue of genetic discrimination, why would it be better to create a large government beaurocracy for healthcare as opposed to just barring anybody but your personal doctors from having access to such records?
That would only solve half (or less) of the problem. I have read essays written by practicing physicians talking about HMO pressures on them to get rid of their sicker patients! Essentially, they are alloted X amount per patient per year PERIOD. If theyt consistantly go over that amount because they have sicker patients, they are out of the program and all of their patients insured through the HMO are reassigned. Given the choice of getting rid of the sicker patients or getting out of medicine, even the most dedicated doctor may be forced to discriminate based on your medical records.
Note that it isn't all that hard to set the cost ceiling so that the same patients end up with no medical care as under a system of genetic discrimination.
It's not that I trust the government to actually be efficient and honest, it's just that I KNOW the HMO's will primarily be effeciant at making sure thet only healthy people can see a doctor.
Re:socialism: the solution to modern medicine's il (Score:2)
If my doctor told me today I needed a brain/heart/whatever scan and the wait is 5 months, what would I do? Drive immediately to Buffalo NY, have it done the same day (and forego restaurant meals that quarter).
And if you had already forgone the restaurant meals to pay your mortgage you would...? And if that health coverage for your scan didn't exist, I imagine you'd forego the scan (since surely homelessness wouldn't be good for your possible brain/heart/whatever condition).
Simply having a good income doesn't necessarily help. Consider the case where you happen to get into a terrible accident the day after you quit/get laid off/get fired from your job.
You haven't lived until you get in an accident and as you lie on a gurney bleeding, the first person you see at the hospital is.....The person who wants you to fill out the insurance forms (With your injured hand no less).
What I take away from your argument is that there will probably need to be a combination of universal health care and premium for pay health care.
Re:Screening Processes (Score:2)
This screening process may just be what the United States, even the World, needs for better health care and having a society without disease, maybe poverty and drugs, but not disease.
This is probably a troll, but...
You ignore the fact that now that the person HAS found out about a potential disease, they have no income available to afford treatment.
Taking this to logical conclusions: The art of genetic screening is perfected to the point of near certainty. We now have a population divided into two parts, those who know they will be healthy and have a decent income, and those who know that soon, they'd better get a decent income or they will die and are equally certain that unless society changes very quickly, they will NOT get that needed income.
Do you really want a significant segment of the population scientifically certain that they have little to loose and everything to gain by revolution?
Re:Screening Processes (Score:2)
I wasn't the person you directed this comment towards, but I feel obliged to respond to it.
Please avoid making derogatory comments like these. Issues such as these are already heavily charged with emotion. To show disrespect to the other side simply makes it harder to discuss the topic.
I would say that your comment shows outright hostility and contempt for the other person. You have seemingly assumed that they are rash and stupid, simply because they don't have the same opinion as you do!
Re:Screening Processes (Score:2)
People who wear spectacles have a harder time getting jobs flying aeroplanes.
People who aren't coordinated or fit have a harder time getting jobs as aerobic instructors.
People who are short have a hard time getting jobs as basketball players.
Discrimination is nothing new, nor is it necessarily something to worry about. Genetic testing just increases the range of knowledge beyond the first glance. Picking the wrong person for the job is detrimental to the employer AND the employee.
Re:Gattica (Score:2)
Re:Have we put an end to human evolution? (Score:2)
The ones that don't get blood transfusions bleed to death from minor injuries in car accidents, or from opting out of life-saving surgeries.
Only a very small fraction of those that DO get transfusions have a chance of contracting HIV.
Oh, by "high risk" behavior, you're talking about ass-fucking? I thought you were talking about something else. Sorry. Everyone knows that "high risk behavior" is ass-fucking, and that's the ONLY way to catch HIV. Right.
Re:Screening Processes (Score:2)
This illustrates two main ways of thinking about this issue.
The first way, is the way of the bean-counter. These guys have a "fiduciary responsibility" to increase the stock value of their company. They are not paid to have a conscience, they are not paid to be moral. They look at numbers on charts, and calculate the most profitable course for a company. They are driven by cold passionless numbers. Their only constraints are the law. If they choose a course of action that leads the company in conflict with the law, it could end up costing the company MORE (in fines and fees - as opposed to the lobbying and bribes required to set more favorable legal environments). Hiring Crosseyed Joe will cost the company more money than hiring Perfect Tom. Well, take this to an extreme; Maybe Crosseyed Joe has 10 years of experience, plus a degree in his field. Perfect Tom may not have that Capal Tunnel Syndrome gene, but he has no experience. How much will it cost in insurance rates and lost productivity to hire Crosseyed Joe, and how much will it cost to simply train Perfect Tom? The discrimination could happen at the resume level - why do we allow discrimination against a person simply due to their work experience?
It's a game of numbers that starts with the insurance company's actuarial tables, goes on with the medical studies that say "gene X gives a person 40% likelyhood of contracting disease Y".
The other way of thinking is to realize that the numbers are a map, not necessarily detailed enough to illustrate a person's REAL value as an employee. Yes, Gina may have a breast cancer gene. But Gina might have a smile that makes her sales figures 200% of the next guy (at least until she gets breast cancer and loses one). Or looking at the big picture, and seeing that even if, statistically, this employee is a potential money-loser, sometimes, if you give them a chance, the company wins in the long run.
HR people can make these exceptions, but the insurance companies have so long been traditionally driven by tables and numbers and statistics, (and there is probably NO benefit to them for giving someone the benefit of the doubt), that there's no way this can be systemically solved by telling everyone to "just play nice".
So, legislation, sadly, is required.
Re:People get the government they deserve... (Score:2)
And you still get to choose which doctor to see, and how many if you want more than 1 opinion.
--
Game over, 2000!
Re:Have we put an end to human evolution? (Score:2)
Re:I don't get it. (Score:2)
Simple, reduced health care costs.
I work for a large corporation that is self-insured. They pay an outside company to administer the medical plan, but in the end, they pay the medical claims.
Is it in their interest to hire someone who is likely to require expensive medical treatment?
The same situation happens with small companies, where one individual with an expensive medical condition can trigger large medical insurance rate increases for the entire company. People have been fired over this.
Re:Have we put an end to human evolution? (Score:2)
Re:Screening Processes (Score:2)
Re:Have we put an end to human evolution? (Score:2)
Not many, but some. (Kinda like Captain Trips)
Re:Screening Processes (Score:2)
Gattica (Score:2)
The olympic athelete with a broken back still is genetically superiour and his genes show no evidence of his disability.
The boy who was too weak to swim out further than his brother and made it back discovered that he could win if he simply didn't save any energy for the trip back.
In a society where your hair, blood, and eyes are used for identification, nobody pays much attention to your face.
True talent will exceed all expectations. There will always be people who recognize that talent and will overlook disadvantages that may not be present at all.
-Restil
Re:This is why you should refuse all testing.. (Score:2)
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/
Re:Doesn't affect me... (Score:2)
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/
Its called universal healthcare (Score:2)
socialism: the solution to modern medicine's ills? (Score:2)
Re:This is why you should refuse all testing.. (Score:2)
Works great until you pay in anything but cash. If you use your credit / debit card, you and your "Martha Bush" profile will become linked...
-jerdenn
Damn Straight! (Score:2)
If you don't believe de-evolution can occur, just think, poodles "evolved" from wolves.
What's one more line in the offer letter? (Score:2)
The GNPA sounds pretty worthless to me. Here's what the offer letter from my past job said:
"This offer is contingent upon the results of (employer's) standard background check."
And when you sign the offer letter, you're agreeing to let them perform that standard background check. You don't sign it, you don't get the job, so the best you can do is sign in and pray their "standard background check" doesn't include exploratory gropings of your double helices.
What's needed is a law [washingtonpost.com] like the one cited by another poster [slashdot.org] which totally prohibits genetic discrimination.
zo.
Re:Wow (Score:2)
I'd have to say GATTACA was pretty damn good. Seen Mission to Mars? Ugh.
It was more about the social ramifications, anyway. It wasn't intended to be a technical dissertation. The themes that came through were very strong, and exactly what we should be afraid of.
Don't think that people in the medical industry are necessarily pro this, either. It took a serious incident in an overseas country before my uncle, who works in diagnostics, would admit that my cousin had serious asthma. Why? He knew that it would already make it difficult to get a job.
Placing this under the medical disabilities frame of reference is disingenuous. While it may help those with outwardly obvious disabilities to be better accepted, it will turn a huge number of people into the genetically disadvantaged-an attitude the physically handicaped need to shed themselves. Abnormality isn't a handicap, it's a fact of life. Not being able to get up the stairs is just waiting for better medical technology. Being predisposed to cancer is no different.
There's only one way to fix this: Socialise health care. Yor employer shouldn't have the final call over life or death for you, so why the hell do so many in the states rely on their employers for their kids' safety?
Cliche time: Land of the free, indeed.
More to this than meets the law? (Score:2)
This example takes place in the UK
You tell your employer you need to see the doctor. Your employer says "fine, take friday afternoon to see him". (S)he then scans your recent emails to see the email you used to book your appointment (respiratory difficulties, whatever). A while later, it comes to their attention, because you've been less than discreet, that you have a genetically transmitted defect that limits the probability of your surviving past the age of 45 to 50%. It's just a statistic, but the odds don't look good for their training budget so they unofficially limit the amount of experience or training you receive. The rationale for this is that whilst you MAY survive to retirement age, the odds of your doing so are limited, and therefore you are not as good a bet as the other, equally bright people of your age in the company. You find out that your potential maximum rank in the company is limited, and discover the reason. When in court contesting the decision, you find yourself faced with every even slightly non-business-related email you've written over the past 8 years compiled into a huge directory that fills a number of lever-arch files, and these are all put in front of the jury with the words, "look at what (s)he spends their time at work doing... this is why we're firing him/her, they're obviously not doing what they're paid for", they then draw the jury's attention to a number of emails you've written over the years that contain sexual/libellous/offensive/potentially confidential content, and bring out a laundry list of rules and guidelines in your contract that you have broken. You haven't got a leg to stand on.
Ok - far fetched - or maybe not. Every element of this storyline has happened in the past, just not all at the same time and to the same person, but put it all together, and your right to privacy and your right to a fair trial, and your right to equal opportunities all go out the window. Most people have sent a rude joke on company time, sent a dozen emails to friends organising parties, mentioned something that - interpreted in the right/wrong context - will look like a breach of confidentiality.
Even if such a thing didn't happen, the fact that we live in a society that has the capability of bringing about this kind of a scenario is what we should be worried about. We shouldn't wait until a few dozen people have been treated in this way before we are deemed to have enough evidence to get something done about it - I prefer shutting the stable door before the horse has bolted.
Of course, giving employees the right to exploit their companies systems ad infinitum and treating the companies like criminal entities just because they COULD do this kind of thing isnt the answer either - so I'm being quite unhelpful inasmuch as I'm just pointing out the problems rather than proposing solutions.
Not stupidity. (Score:2)
When an employee takes time to goes for medical treatment the employer requests the reason. Now, if you need days off (ie. under FMLA), the employer has a right to know the reason.
In all of the above, the employer is not to use this information to discriminate, but they do.
The impression that most ADA cases are lost is not accurate. That percentage is based on a result from a trial. If an employer is faced with a strong case, the employer will settle.
Re:People get the government they deserve... (Score:2)
And having public/universal healthcare doesn't address the privacy issues. Seems like governmental medicine would fall under freedom of information acts. That would suck.
Actually no.
Medical information in Canada is protected under doctor-patient privledge. I don't know what our equivalent of the Freedom of Information Act is, but under the Privacy Act [privcom.gc.ca] (which controls government use of personal information) no information about an individual can be disclosed to others without the consent of that individual. (There are some exceptions for medical emergencies, law enforcement, etc.)
Moreover, the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act [privcom.gc.ca] (PIPEDA -- controls the private use of personal information) explicitly states that medical practitioners must protect personal information. This is a new act, and it will be phased starting Jan 01, 2001.
Under PIPEDA, the information about this woman's genetic disease could not be released to her employer without her explicit consent. Although she went to HR to have them contact the drug company, that information would be considered private and could not be released to her boss.
Hmmm.... Privacy and health care. Not bad.
Let me get this straight... (Score:2)
You might be lucky enough to have a job with an understanding and compassionate boss, but you are in the minority. Most people don't have the luxury of picking and choosing which jobs they can work, and if they get fired, they don't just take it with a shrug as you seem to indicate. It can really mess up their lives. Sure, we can all complain about our bosses, but when it comes down to the bottom line, most can't just quit.
As to the government restricting employers' decisions on hiring and firing: such controls would be unneccessary if employers (like the one from the article) didn't prove themselves to be assholes. Not hiring someone because their skin is too dark or their age is too great is no better than not hiring them because they are afflicted with a medical condition through no fault of their own.
Unfortunately, when eugenics finally comes along, it will be discriminatory people such as yourself making the decisions as to what people should be like. Thus, there will be no one left to even understand the argument within 100 years. =P
If, in a generation or two, your children, friends, or other loved ones are denied access to employment, higher education, or affordable housing due to genetic testing... will you still be saying "so what"?
-Kasreyn.
So what? (Score:2)
If you think your boss is a bastard, then don't work for him.
Re:Hmmm...A Warning Call, But Really Necessary? (Score:3)
It's not the data its what we assign to it (Score:3)
Re:socialism: the solution to modern medicine's il (Score:3)
Truth of the matter is, universal healthcare can be *less* expensive than private healthcare. For instance, Canada's healthcare system costs the country about 40% less of its national income than the US healthcare system.
The problem with private healthcare is that its interest *must* be in maximizing profits, *not* maximizing health. If everyone in the USA were to suddenly become healthy, the private healthcare industry would collapse.
It's the same problem with private healthcare insurance. Its interest must, once again, be in maximizing profit. Ergo, it *must* rid itself of coverage of expensive illnesses.
The biggest problem with the American system is, inevitably, its absolute insistence on private corporate profits over public good. The second biggest problem is the brainwashing that those corporations are doing, to ensure that the mass public doesn't think things through.
This is going to sound harsh, but *give your head a shake!* Dare to challenge your own assumptions, habits and beliefs. You just might discover that you've been shammed.
For what it's worth, the [Washington Monthly] [washingtonmonthly.com] has an eye-opening article that begins to chip away at the media/corporate bullshit.
--
Doesn't affect me... (Score:3)
P.S. Merry Christmas to everybody else who can't sleep.
--
opps (Score:3)
"Go on just give it to me Doc I can take it"
"well it looks like you have a genetic predisposition to Slashdot And everquest" *cring*"NO!!!!, Doc you can't tell my wife or my boss, she'll leave me and worst yet he'll reconfiger the fire wall. *sobing*
________
Re:That's terrible... (Score:3)
That's just it - the genetic tests only reveal the CHANCE that something is wrong.
Or more accurately, the increased chance that something (specific) might go wrong. Same thing you can more or less get from geneology records. Are you suggesting that someone should be fired because his father and grandfather both died of cancer?
How about men over 40, who have an increased chance of prostate cancer? Or older women, with an increased chance of breast cancer?
It's basically a stereotype. "Oh, so-and-so has such-and-such a gene, they're going to get (insert disease here)!"
It'd be like firing someone who is gay because they're more likely to get AIDS - illegal and wrong.
Dark Nexus
More proof that businesses should be... (Score:3)
And when the government does nothing to help, that screams that the government is either completely useless, or that it's been supressed, bought off, etc., by the businesses.
I think it's time when the people of the world rise up and throw off the shackles forced on them by businesses. You can see that business is evil and a negative influence on everything, from people to the environment. It's time we fought with something more effective than litigation.
This is it boys, this is war.
Re:Think of it as evolution in action (Score:3)
Natural selection doesn't need any 'help', and in the long run, genetic diversity is this specie's only chance of survival. If we concentrate on encouraging only those traits that are 'best' given current situations, we give up long term adaptibility.
We'll end up with a reletivly genetically homogenous species quite possibly lacking in the potential for further positive evolution. Human beings have succeeded thusfar because as a species they are highly adaptable.
We should encourage the survival of as many different genetic makeups as possible and try to halt any trends toward homogenization. Thus, rather than conducting genetic screening, we should ban interracial breeding.
Not uncommon (Score:3)
Myself having hemophilia, my treatments in the form of synthetic factor are extremly expensive, costing in the hundreads of thousands of dollars PER MONTH. This is more than many conditions, including AIDs and most cancers. You can imagine this was a huge drain and was quite costly to the company.
The solution in the company's mind was termination, but it was obvious this would be asking for trouble. So, they took the route *most* travelled and pushed my father out. They would find things to complain about, fire all his staff and make him frantic -- they basically made it like hell. He eventually quit, with these retaining these rumors.
So, in a way, it's similar to genetic discrimination in the other case. So it isn't just a "look what happened to that laddy" article, and I take real offense to that considering this is what most companies do all the time. And don't think your personal records are safe because insurance-company communication is very frequent, especially if they are close knit as in this case. Do you have a company logo on your insurance card or is does your company have any association with your insurance provider (if covered by your employment plan)? If so, it would be trivial for any one sufficiently high enough in the company to get ahold of anything medically about you, probably down to the linens used in your last clinic checkup.
Great progress (Score:4)
Funny? Note. Many black people have a problem with red blood cells. This problem is a two blade knife. The gene may be inherited from both parents and you may get sick with a mostly deadly anemia. However if you have inherited it from only one parent then you are highly resistent to malaria. Good and bad. However an employer may use this as an argument to kick you out anyway. For some there is only the need for half truth. On the rest he will find tons of arguments to forget about it.
Hmmm...A Warning Call, But Really Necessary? (Score:4)
As the article mentions, requiring a family history is a crude form of genetic screening and is done all the time. We tolerate it because a) it's not that accurate and b) it allows insurers to lower their rates. But a few more details might shed some light on exactly what impropriety occured. As it is, this is simply a "ooh, look what happened to her!" article.
Re:Screening Processes (Score:4)
This mandatory testing may be for the best. If such occurences, such as this woman ending up having her life saved, happen enough, then our society will be better off as a whole.
Nobody is saying the testing itself is wrong, its what people do with it that's wrong. Yes the woman's life was saved by the test. Yes she probably would not have known that her life was in danger because of that. But no, just because she may have a predeposition to such a disease does not mean she should be denied a job. In fact, that means she theoretically cannot get a single job anywhere and somebody's "saved" life has been ruined.
Another thing that this health issue could do is to provide a cheap way for poor people to get medical help. They could apply to these jobs, get the genetic testing, and then have treatment for their ailments.
That's an interesting twist on the situation, and in a sense it is true. However you must look at the end result, not just the instant result. Suddenly because somebody took a free genetic test they are denied ALL job holdings. Suddenly they have no source of income. And now how the hell will they possibly pay for the medical help required to remedy the situation? They either need to get additional help which that company sure as hell isn't going to pay for, or just carry some evil gene that the company doesn't like and lose a job opportunity AND know that while they will never get their disease, that company still denied them the job. (Citing the extra cost of health insurance for a child that will have the disease instead). Not to mention the fact that a genetic test is not medical coverage for everything anyways. Genetics provides the basis for many diseases and resistances as well, but does not trigger everything. The tests really cannot tell what a person will be for sure when they grow up because enviroment always makes a difference on a person.
This screening process may just be what the United States, even the World, needs for better health care and having a society without disease, maybe poverty and drugs, but not disease.
Once again let me reiterate on the last point. Just because you screened out a person does that mean you kill out all the diseases in the world. Maybe I'll be happy if you can kill AIDS by screening out people who will get it for sure since they carry the "AIDS gene", but that isn't going to happen. Plus where do you stop about ending diseases? It has been proven that everybody carries some sort of faulty gene. It goes against the idea of natural selection and we might as well kill ourselves right now because everybody is "diseased" under your standard. Then there's the issue of actually rejecting "diseased" people, which brings me to my next point.
It may seem cruel, but this might be one of the best ways to screen for jobs. It will allow our businesses to have the best and healthiest employees. This will lead to increased production and satisfaction by the customer.
May seem cruel. May seem cruel. May seem crule. IT IS CRUEL YOU GODDAMN BASTARD!!! The other people that have responded already referring to your "elitist" talk are absolutely correct. Just because somebody loses money we should let a poor soul suffer. Increased production. What does that mean? It means that because Joe Smith was not hired on basis that he carries some gene or MIGHT get a disease, we lose productivity. That's BS. 99.9% of all inhibiting genetic factors in the workplace are simply not what they seem. The only thing a corporation will ever be cared about is paying the health insurance companies (and thus extra money for heavy usage of the coverage plan). If a person will get a disease because of some hazardous chemical enviroment, then the predesposition should be able to be treated by other means (unless, of course, the chemical causes cancer for people with that gene, and of course, everything causes cancer these days so what are we supposed to say? genetic tests are not the say all, end all of the line). I challenge you to even name one case where genetic tests will determine if a person will be affected in the workplace 100% of the time and where that condition does not show up already physically as well. Satisfaction by the customer as well. That's based on the idea that somehow big fat corporations will satisfy a customer just because they rejected a person who will most likely not have the disease. Not to mention they may have picked up a lazy slob who somehow passed the checks that leads to decreased production. Not to mention that that one individual is not a corporation and its the decisions of the guy in the big office who really determines customer satifaction for the most part. Not to mention that the customer is not just a customer. The customer is a relative to somebody, a loved and important one, someone who has to somehow produce as well in our capitalist society. And thus, that person does not necessarily have to be happy if he got a better product and lost his or her job.
To the first part of your argument, what makes the best and healthiest employees? Is it the person who might get a heart attack someday, or is it the employee who has that same condition but eats the rights food, excercies daily, etc, etc? And the best employees? Does your genome determine if you will be a team player, if you are willing to take blame, and all those other things. Genetics may one day prove a little about this, but in the end, it will always be the person attitude about themself that produces the best or worst employee. Genomes don't say all, and the current system works as well. Remember that genetic tests are flawed in determining EVERYTHING about a person.
And finally, answering that same quote and summarizing the issue at hand. Genetic discrimination is just another way to try to rid society of problems. Whether or not test results work, somebody is going to try and and use them to discriminate because they believe it works. Somebody else will as many already have. The whole idea of the capitalist system is flawed when some people have no sense of morality (and believe me, that is very much the case). The idea that we must compete and take no prisoners is detrimental to society in the end (in the words of my old history teacher about the "game" of capitalism: "Yeah! We took them out too!!!"). People have to learn what is the ethical line between making a profit and stomping on others. People that work at corporations aren't exactly poor like those who live out on the streets. Back in the 1930's eugenics movement, people were forced to sterilize themselves because they were alcoholic and their kids would thus be alcoholic based on their genes. Is this really the case or a falsehood due to the flawed concepts that we are who we are because our biological fate determined it? Is history repeating itself? We need to stop that from happening before it becomes completely true.
-----
To smash the little atom, all mankind was intent. Now any day the atom may return the compliment.
Have we put an end to human evolution? (Score:4)
Think about it
In America and other industrialized societies pretty much everyone survives and reproduces. I can't imagine much survival of the fittest going on...
Meanwhile in Africa I foresee that people will evolve to become immune to AIDS. AIDS is rampant in Africa, and we're going to see the emergence of a strain of humans who are naturally resistant to HIV. Simply because they will survive while everyone else dies.
Evolution is based on the deaths of those who are not fit... Something to think about.
TimThat's what you get. (Score:5)
This is why you should refuse all testing.. (Score:5)
It's not just Europe that is like that - most companies in Canada (barring ones that are puppets for US based companies) do not require drug testing. This is for the most part because you can't be fired in Canada (and Europe, IIRC) for drug abuse, as that would be discriminatory - your employer in most cases would even offer rehabilitation!. If you're not paying me, what I do at home, or what I did 5 years before coming to work for you is none of your business. I show up coked/stoned/drunk, that's a different matter. One of the things that irks me is that you can tell if someone's out of it without making them piss in a bottle.
If you don't want to see "blood test" added to the list of employment pre-screens, refuse them! I have only had to do this once, and got the job regardless. Tell them you object to the violation of your privacy - and you'd be suprised that most of the time you get agreed with. I'm shocked they would ask - I mean, what would they do if you asked THEM to piss in a bottle for you so you can see what kind of workplace they run?
Another thing that is distrubing is that these tests produce paperwork, and you have no control over the paperwork - it gets sent to the employer. So, you think that your credit cards are worth worrying about? Would you be worried about your medical/drug history, likely stored unsecured? Plan on running for office in 20 years? (I won't even let employers keep my school transcripts on file - you want to look, fine, but you're not getting a copy!). I get ill thinking about people that use those supermarket buying cards - I'm sure my health insurer would love to cancel my insurance in 50 years because I drank a 24 of beer every week or ate 3 pounds of bacon every weekend (etc).
You have a choice. "Just Say No". If you lose the job, fine, there are other jobs out there. If you don't say no, then don't bitch and moan when you're a second class citizen as a result. The jobs that actually have some merit to requiring drug testing are few, and the ones requiring DNA testing are IMHO non-existant.
I had something like this happen (Score:5)
Over the past year, I've had several more tests done by several different doctors that confirm the bad heart valve. One Army doctor thinks I have Marfan's Syndrome [webmd.com], but I think that's a mis-diagnose due to the lack of evidence and I only have the heart problem. None of the other problems. Anyways, back to the Pink Slip part.
My doctor used this information to deem me "Not Worldwide Qualified" category, which basically means I got fired. Of this, a medical board conviened and confirmed his decision. I challenged their decision on a basis of lack of evidence. They had the results from 2 Echocardiograms [webmd.com] and 1 MUGA Scan. [webmd.com] They decided that I should be discharged with a severance pay and a disability rating. I did not want to leave the military. So I challenged their decision and flew to Texas to a formal Medical Evaluation Board. After a whole bunch of political and monetary bullshit, I got to see a cardiologist, finally. And talk with an Air Force lawyer. The cardiologist did a few more tests and basically just confirmed that I had a bad Aortic Heart Valve. He does not think that I have Marfan's Syndrome. [webmd.com] And my lawyer was of little help. He just wanted to not do any paperwork, I think. He did tell me that if I did challenge the board, I would lose. I would lose because the team of medical experts that sat on the formal MEB would somehow prove that this was a pre-existing, read genetic condition. And if they did, I'd lose everything. The severance pay, disability rating, and my job. So I decided not to pursue it any farther and risk losing everything, so I took their original offer and got out.
They still haven't proved anything other than I have a heart problem. So now, I have a heart problem that could or could not be related to my AF duties, but I have something that I can go to the VA [va.gov] with.
Soooo....to make a long story short, I was fired because of a possibly genetic condition. A Lose, Win situation if you ask me. Sure, I lost my job, but I'm getting out of this freezing place that's in the middle of nowhere and heading back to the states. I start school again next month and will have some experiance 'under my belt.' At least now I can have some chance of getting out of such a deeply entrenched WinNT network that barely has funding and go to something that at least has money flowing into its IT department. And get that piece of paper that says, "[Insert name here] you have shelled out several [ten's of] thousand dollars to us so that we can certify that you are smart enough to become part of the vast corporate ladder."
Amigori
--------------
The Air Force. A good experience if you can deal with politics and stupid people, you can work here.
What's the problem? (Score:5)
Oh.. wait.. you meant genes. My bad.
Re:Screening Processes (Score:5)
So what you are saying is you would rather have someones potential life determined at birth rather than allow people to live their lives and make themselves what they want to be? Genes, for the most part, do not hardcode when it comes to disease and other forms of mental dispositions (ie: depression, homosexuality, excessive happiness, etc) - They simply indicate a predisposition.
By hiring/firing based on these genetic predispositions, you are entirely negating the impact that the individual person has upon their own destiny. Under your logic, it would be argumentably sound to say "Al The Geek had 1 girlfriend in highschool. Thus, he has an X% (for the sake of example, lets say 90%) of never getting married due to social ineptitude. Therefore, we must prevent Al from ever being able to marry".
The only difference is, in this case, "Al" has a genetic predisposition to Alzheimers, and thus shouldn't be allowed to work in any important task which may allow for social advancement or betterment because of the risk that he may develop the symptoms and at some point "forget" a crucial instruction. Or that Grace, who has a genetic predisposition to the possibility of poor eyesight in her middle ages cannot be allowed to be a pilot, even though no symptoms are exhibited of poor eyesight.
Genetic discrimination is something that those eschewing social darwinism have been waiting for - but instead of keeping the poor in menial jobs and the social elite making the money, instead they keep the "weak" in the menial jobs and establish positions to allow the genetic superior to become the social superior.
As much as I, in my geekness, would love to see the day come where intelligence is more respected then how many parties I throw during high school/how many cheerleaders I get in the sack, I would shudder at the idea where I am, from birth, bred for a position of social superiority due to some genetic indicator which indicates I "may be" a better learner than others.
As far as society goes, do you think a society which shuns/respects people based solely on labels (ie: studies have shown that, when given a diverse and statistically equal group, where certain students are described as teachers to be "slow learners" - when there is no basis for that - that the students then become slow learners based upon the treatment by the teachers on the assumption that they are slow learners) can handle the knowledge of whether someone "may or may not" develop a disease in the future?
In summary, I simply say "Fah!" to you and your elitist ideals.
Current system (Score:5)
Firstly, there is no specific federal law that says discrimination on the basis of your genetic information is illegal. Some judges have interpreted the ADA as doing so however, and also some people say the EEOC theoretically covers the issue. Of course, with the cases mentioned it's hard to say whether or not that actually works. There is another problem however. The ADA talks mostly about disabilties and to some extent refers to asymptomatic conditons (those not triggered yet for whatever reason) but the extent of asymptomatic coverage is also debated. For example, a woman was given health coverage but since she carried a gene for cystic fibrosis, her unborn baby was already denied insurance because it was most likely that it would develop such diseases.
Secondly, there ARE state laws protecting the rights to privacy- they just don't cover everything or everybody. Remember, since there is no uniform policy there is no uniform coverage in between any states. It is hard to generalize what protection is given, and in some cases the legislation only covers discrimination on insurance policies, by far not enough to include employment. Most advocates for a federal policy cite that these laws are too confusing, vague, and sometimes limited to actually help out the people in the cases mentioned.
That doesn't mean there hasn't been attempts to pass legislation in the past. The GPNA (Genetic Privacy and Non-Discrimination Act) of 1997 failed to pass through Congress, mostly in part because people saw the ADA as a good protection and that genetic privacy issues would thus never be a problem. If only Congress had the benefit of hindsight then. The GPNA would prevent disclosure of genetic data of a person to anybody without the written consent of that person (with a few lawful exceptions of course, such as body IDing and for criminal investigations). Generally speaking, if we get a comprehensive policy covering all Americans equally and specifically addressing the issues presented by genetic discrimination, most and hopefully all of the cases will never come up again.
--------
To smash the little atom, all mankind was intent. Now any day the atom may return the compliment.