Journal of Medical Ethics 47 (7):473-479 (2021)

Jonathan Pugh
Oxford University
The use of genetic testing has prompted the question of whether insurance companies should be able to use predictive genetic test results in their risk classification of clients. While some jurisdictions have passed legislation to prohibit this practice, the UK has instead adopted a voluntary code of practice that merely restricts the ways in which insurance companies may use GTRs. Critics have invoked various theories of justice to argue that this approach is unfair. However, as well as sometimes relying on somewhat idealised assumptions, these analyses have tended to invoke theories that have wide-ranging and highly revisionary implications for insurance. Moreover, they fail to adequately engage with a conception of justice that plausibly undergirds the status quo approach to insurance in the UK. I argue that it is a mistake to simply invoke a single contestable theory in seeking to develop sound policy on the use of GTRs in insurance. To that end, in this paper, I outline three plausible principles of justice that policy on this issue ought to balance: A principle of equity, a principle of equal access and a principle of need. In doing so, I shall offer a pluralist justice-based argument in support of the spirit, if not the precise letter, of the UK approach. There are no data in this work.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1136/medethics-2020-106913
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 70,008
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

What is the Point of Equality.Elizabeth Anderson - 1999 - Ethics 109 (2):287-337.
Equality and Equal Opportunity for Welfare.Richard J. Arneson - 1989 - Philosophical Studies 56 (1):77 - 93.
Equality and Priority.Derek Parfit - 1997 - Ratio 10 (3):202–221.
Equality as a Moral Ideal.Harry Frankfurt - 1987 - Ethics 98 (1):21-43.
Why Sufficiency is Not Enough.Paula Casal - 2007 - Ethics 117 (2):296-326.

View all 17 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Care for Language: Etymology as a Continental Argument in Bioethics.Hub Zwart - 2021 - Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 18 (4):645-654.
Social Insurance, Mutualistic Insurance and Genetic Information.Eli Feiring - 2021 - Journal of Medical Ethics 47 (7):486-487.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Why Shouldn’T Insurance Companies Know Your Genetic Information?Neil A. Manson - 2007 - Journal of Philosophical Research 32 (Supplement):345-356.


Added to PP index

Total views
8 ( #1,006,089 of 2,505,203 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #416,705 of 2,505,203 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes