Re:The Bad Seed (Score 1)

[snip]

So on DNA evidence alone, insurers refuse to cover cancer treatment. When it turns out that there was indeed cancer, and we're cured of it, insurers refuse to cover us.
You are correct: insurance companies are businesses, and their primary interest is to make a profit. So we should ask ourselves, why is it reasonable that we as a society entrust our health to an entity that is not interested in maintaining it?

Without the genetic screening, your family would have potentially suffered the loss of many lives. That, outside of the money lost because of noncoverage, is a win in my opinion.

The other side would be the same regardless of the inclusion of genetic screening. You survived cancer so according to their evidence you are more likely to get cancer again and thus are a bad business risk.

Your final question is a whole other discussion. Who do you propose would step in for the insurance companies? The government? The same government that you allude shouldn't have your DNA because they will arrest you in error?

Oh and the bit about entrusting your DNA to the government. Well, maybe you aren't the type to commit a "known crime". But maybe the government will use your DNA to associate you with one. Or maybe a clerical error will convict you. Then, all of a sudden, someone who has no otehr reason to be a suspect will get convicted.

A clerical error could convict me or anyone else today, regardless of the involvement of DNA evidence. I stand behind my theory that DNA will overwhelmingly free the innocent, not convict in error.