Sunday Times Articles - Genetic Markers

Scenic911

Hi Folks,

Here's another article to ponder. Can't remember the page .. you have to find it yourselves. The article was concentrated on stomach cancer and how scientists have developed a test for this. It also mentions two sisters that had a family history and had the test done. In both cases they had a life saving operation as the tests came back positive. The article further went on to say that the scientists have developed tests for other cancers. I can’t remember them all but one of them is bowl cancer. The article also went on about the implication of health insurance companies thinking about implementing these types of tests as a further reduction of insurance payments. It never says anything about want happens to people that turn up positive.

So what are people views on this?

S

The_Conductor

New Scientist had an interesting article on this a while back as well.
Personally I would be disgusted if an insurance company decided to make its customers undergo genetic testing before offering them insurance. This would give you two options- accept reduced coverage that did not cover anything that came up in the test, or forego insurance altogether.

It would create an underclass of people, who were uninsurable- and it would also be a very good reason for people to delibertly not be tested for potential illnesses- as these would then be considered as pre-existing conditions by the insurance companies.

There would further be ethical issues- would medical laboratories (who in many cases were being paid by insurance companies) be compelled to disclose their findings to insurance companies? And what of people who decided of their own accord to pay for testing themselves (a very expensive procedure)- would their results, and indeed the knowledge that they had undertaken the testing, remain private, or enter the commercial domain?

At the end of the day insurance companies, like any businesses, are there to make money- and if they saw a perceived statistical anamoly whereby certain groups of people were more likely to pursue claims against them- obviously they would at very least increase their premiums by a commensurate amount- or refuse to offer them coverage.

Then there are the group of people who really would rather not know the stories their genes may hold. People who are happy to live their life as it comes. Would these people now be forced to undergo testing and discover any of a bizzare list of possible future maladies?

In short- would there be a degree of compulsion on people to undergo the testing and what would the implications of the results of these tests be? Sure a reduction in premiums is a very nice carrot- but would you have a commensurate stick for those who refused to undergo testing (either as a weighting on the policy, or an outright refusal to offer coverage)?

tbh

I think the current policy in a lot of insurance companies is that you don't have to get a test done, but if you have had one done, you have to tell them the results. I have to say, I can see their logic. I would hate to see enforced testing, it's hard enough to get insurance as it is..

Marksie

I actually worked for a company developing a genetic test for CF and also some preliminary work on Bowel cancer.

I was always concerned about the role insurance companies would take, and also prospective employers.
For inherited genetic diseases such as CF really the diganosis is based for teh parents to give them some idea of the likelihood of any children having the disease.

But what really concerned me was the test for a particular mutation that is indicated in emphysema...alpha-1-Antitrypsin deficiency.
The mutations range in severity and it is possible that you will never develop emphysema, except for one other risk factor ....smoking that dual link was really deadly.
So in that case insurance companies and employers concern with these cancer diagnostics are not about curing/preventing the disease but with the PROBABILITY of various factors combining together to affect their premiums.

And of course i was around in the 80s when HIV was the big scare and insurance companies demanded to know how many sexual partners you had had, if you had ever had a hiv test, sexual orientation the works.. if you refused..no insurance. It was a terrible invasion of privacy and eventually came back to bite them when the authorities in the uk decided enough was enough.