Bioethics 23 (5):300-310 (2009)
AbstractMany countries have imposed strict regulations on the genetic information to which insurers have access. Commentators have warned against the emerging body of legislation for different reasons. This paper demonstrates that, when confronted with the argument that genetic information should be available to insurers for health insurance underwriting purposes, one should avoid appeals to rights of genetic privacy and genetic ignorance. The principle of equality of opportunity may nevertheless warrant restrictions. A choice-based account of this principle implies that it is unfair to hold people responsible for the consequences of the genetic lottery, since we have no choice in selecting our genotype or the expression of it. However appealing, this view does not take us all the way to an adequate justification of inaccessibility of genetic information. A contractarian account, suggesting that health is a condition of opportunity and that healthcare is an essential good, seems more promising. I conclude that if or when predictive medical tests (such as genetic tests) are developed with significant actuarial value, individuals have less reason to accept as fair institutions that limit access to healthcare on the grounds of risk status. Given the assumption that a division of risk pools in accordance with a rough estimate of people's level of (genetic) risk will occur, fairness and justice favour universal health insurance based on solidarity.
Similar books and articles
Genetic Information: Important but Not “Exceptional”. [REVIEW]Ruth Hannah Wilkinson - 2010 - Identity in the Information Society 3 (3):457-472.
The Use of Genetic Test Information in Insurance: The Argument From Indistinguishability Reconsidered.V. Launis - 2000 - Science and Engineering Ethics 6 (3):299-310.
Genetic Nondiscrimination and Health Care as an Entitlement.B. M. Kious - 2010 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 35 (2):86-100.
Genetic Tests in the Insurance System: Criteria for a Moral Evaluation.Felix Thiele - 2003 - Poiesis and Praxis 1 (3):185-195.
Is There a Duty to Remain in Ignorance?Iain Brassington - 2011 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 32 (2):101-115.
Distinguishing Genetic From Nongenetic Medical Tests: Some Implications for Antidiscrimination Legislation.Joseph S. Alper & Jon Beckwith - 1998 - Science and Engineering Ethics 4 (2):141-150.
Are Genetic Self-Tests Dangerous? Assessing the Commercialization of Genetic Testing in Terms of Personal Autonomy.Ludvig Beckman - 2004 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 25 (5-6):387-398.
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads
Citations of this work
Genetic Information, Insurance and a Pluralistic Approach to Justice.Jonathan Pugh - 2021 - Journal of Medical Ethics 47 (7):473-479.
Social Insurance, Mutualistic Insurance and Genetic Information.Eli Feiring - 2021 - Journal of Medical Ethics 47 (7):486-487.
AJOB-Neuroscience Top Abstract Award Winners From the 2021 International Neuroethics Society Annual Meeting.Coates McCall - 2022 - American Journal of Bioethics Neuroscience 13 (4):287-306.
References found in this work
Equality and Equal Opportunity for Welfare.Richard J. Arneson - 1989 - Philosophical Studies 56 (1):77 - 93.
Fairness, Respect, and the Egalitarian Ethos.Jonathan Wolff - 1998 - Philosophy and Public Affairs 27 (2):97-122.