Pink Slip In Your Genes

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.

Re:Hmmm...A Warning Call, But Really Necessary?

Her story [nationalpartnership.org] and an update on the legal proceedings [alpha1.org]. Terri Seargent was named in the Congressional debate as an example of a person genetically discriminated against.

It's not the data its what we assign to it

This is the phrenology of the 21st cen. Whether the information is useful or not its what we do with it that's important. We assign an importance to this gene or that. And just like phrenology we assume that our science is correct and valuable and a predictor. In fact its just another reflection of our own biases. To say nothing of the non science potential: the crime gene, the jewish gene, the crack gene, the bad driving gene.....etc.... we can justify anything based on our so called science. So did the witch trials.

Re:socialism: the solution to modern medicine's il

It looks like you've fallen victim to the media propaganda, friend.

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...

...because I live in a county where this is now illegal [washingtonpost.com].

P.S. Merry Christmas to everybody else who can't sleep. :-]


--

opps

"Hummm sir your test has come back and ....well"

"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...

If the discrimination has a rational basis, then what's wrong with it?

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...

More proof that businesses should be heavily regulated. Other than really small businesses, I swear that not a single for-profit organization gives half a rat's ass about it's employees.
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

We don't know enough about human genetic structure to make informed decisions, though.

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

This happened to me. Well, not me exactly, but to my parents. When my father went to work for a new company he received health insurance for the entire family like usual. This particular company, however, was using pooled insurance with several other companies, which means they would pool in a certain amount of money based on their profits and their percent usage of the pool.

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

So, from this moment, no employer will fire anyone based on the colour of your skin, gender, ethnic origin. He will just say: "Oh you have the gene XXX. Our company policies do not accept people with XXX genes..."

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?

I wish we'd gotten more information on the case mentioned at the top of the article. How did her employer find out about her condition? Was her health insurance through her employer? If so, did her insurance company notify her employer? To do so would seem to be an extreme breach of privacy. Or did she simply talk about it around the office (not realizing the possible ramifications) and someone upstairs felt they must "do something"? And is it absolutely certain that she lost her job because of her condition?

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

Holy crap think twice before you speak.

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?

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.

Tim

That's what you get.

No universal heathcare, it's your own fault America. The fact that you can be 'denied' heathcare in an otherwise fully first world country is insane..

This is why you should refuse all testing..

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

Something similar to this has happened to me. Let me explain. I was in the US Air Force working as a SysAd in Alaska. Upon entering the military, I had a clean bill of health. While being incredibly bored up here, I decided to try for my Private Pilot License. Anyways, I went to the doctor to get a Flight Physical so I could start flying. The Doc thought he heard a heart murmur. Since we only have a clinic on base, he sent me to Anchorage to have some tests done. The results come back and not only do I have a murmur, but a bad Aortic Valve.

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?

I don't see any problem with that. Employers should be able to hire/fire based on dress code. I mean, come on, I think it's perfectly justified to fire someone for dirty jeans....


Oh.. wait.. you meant genes. My bad.

Re:Screening Processes

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.

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

For those of you wondering what current laws cover here's a clarification:

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.