genomics, should we?

[James T]

We are increasingly identifying genetic tendancies for, diseases, height, hair colour, obesity, intelligence etc. There will be occasions where these correlate more strongly with one or another racial group. We already have BiDil which is effective for black patients from the FDA, this one appears to have been a little random, in that it was discovered after the data was in that it worked for blacks, that is there was a correlation in the data for black patients and while the overall result was insufficient to get FDA approval the black result was.

However, in future we will see more of this. But more worryingly, if we fail to address it you can expect to have a genetic check with a doctor before you get your next round of health insurance approved.

There are obviously a number of ways around this one. Stop testing. Ban discrimination based on genomic information. What's your pick?

Personally I think this is a no-brainer. We'll do nothing to fix it, yet we should ban discrimination.

 

[Blackguard_]

Personally I think this is a no-brainer. We'll do nothing to fix it, yet we should ban discrimination.

Yeah makes sense, we are all the same no matter what genetics says. (where's the "rolls-eyes" smilie when you need it?)

 

[James T]

Yeah makes sense, we are all the same no matter what genetics says. (where's the "rolls-eyes" smilie when you need it?)

I'd rather express it as we all deserve the same opportunities, even if our capabilities are not the same.

 

[Blackguard_]

I'd rather express it as we all deserve the same opportunities, even if our capabilities are not the same.

What are you driving at?

Or how is an insurance provider genetically screening people for risks bad? They ask questions about your family's medical history already don't they? And as private companies, it is their right to discriminate.

 

[James T]

And it is the government's right to legislate where the market will discriminate.

There is a correlation between IQ and death, dumber people die earlier. Should insurance companies be allowed to give you an IQ test and base their charges against it?

You seem to be supporting their right to do this.

 

[Blackguard_]

And it is the government's right to legislate where the market will discriminate.

so much for private property and free-enterprise.

There is a correlation between IQ and death, dumber people die earlier. Should insurance companies be allowed to give you an IQ test and base their charges against it?

yes. Why is a voluntary transaction using our private property anyone else's business but our own?

You seem to be supporting their right to do this.

That's becasue I am.

 

[Nymphalidae]

Why not get the fetus screened in the first trimester for genetic diseases? I'm asking this seriously. It could save a lot of money and heartache.

 

[James T]

Why not get the fetus screened in the first trimester for genetic diseases? I'm asking this seriously. It could save a lot of money and heartache.

Screen earlier, that way you can abort if necessary.

 

[MoonlessNight]

Genomics are the natural consequence when (at least in the business world) we view employees, clients, etc. as resources and not as people. And as such, there's no good way to avoid its abuses while keeping that mindset.

 

[David Gould]

I see no problem with it. The more information we can provide people about the risks that face them as individuals, the better. And why should we force insurance companies to take bad risks? Makes no sense to me. If we as a society decide that people should be able to get insurance, no matter what the risk, then we as a society should pay for that, not individual shareholders of insurance companies.

 

[Lifesaver]

If hospitals and laboratories can work from our genetical characteristics, they can develop drugs and treatments that more suited for us; this will mean more effective and personalized care. Not to mention they can help us prevent many diseases before we even get them.

By allowing say, insurance companies to make their discrimination more perfectly, there will be people paying more and people paying less. Without discrimination, those who would pay less have to pay more to make up for those who would have to pay more, and who are paying less.
Of course, insurance companies already make many kinds of discrimination (ask if the person is a smoker, whether they drive, whether they drink, their age, heart problems in the past, number of car accidents, etc); we allow them to discriminate on the basis of "nurture"; why not on the basis of "nature"?

What many people fail to see is that market discrimination happens only where there are (or at least seem to be) real differences. If it is realized that blond people are just as likely to have an accident as brown-haired ones, there will be no discrimination; if there is a difference, there will be a discrimination; why is that bad? Why should the "safer group" pay more and the "riskier group" less?

Granted, there are situations regarding genetics where the government might be able to intervene in a beneficial way, but the case is often the opposite. What I fear the most, in fact, is the government using this information for its ends, which are never very clear.