Breadcrumbs Section. Click here to navigate to respective pages.
Chapter
Chapter
method normally found in the UK is, at the moment, slightly different. This system is called solidarity; everyone shares the cost of insurance, across the entire gamut of risk. Even so, there have been modifiers which have crept in, such as smoking or obesity. In the case of smoking it is a self-inflicted injury and, for the most part so is obesity, but not always. Generally speaking, genetic information can be ignored using this model. So we return to our original supposition: why not test everyone and modify their premiums accordingly, which is what the insurance industry would like? Well, to begin with this would be a ‘cherry picking’ exercise. Whatever is said it can be assumed that the truth, now or later, is that if insurance companies were allowed to assess individual risk someone would end up as uninsurable, while those that probably do not need insurance will be quite happily given it. So if the claim is that there is no intention to increase profits, which it has been stated to be, why bother? Is it altruism on the part of insurance companies to put premiums up for one group and down for another? This brings us to point two. If there is no desire to increase profits, why not retain the actuarial system currently in place? Actuarial tables have been used for centuries and give a good guide to the numbers of any age cohort who will die at any given time. This system works for both the insured and the insurer; to change it is to load the dice in a game of chance in favour of the dice holder. The insurers want to bet on a certainty; the rest of us want access to affordable insurance. This is the point where the legal challenge should be pursued. Discrimination in any form is both undesirable and dangerous. It is undesirable because we may lose a significant resource in the shape of our genetic diversity. After all, we have seen that some genes which are routinely described as ‘disease genes’ have turned out to confer additional fitness to the unaffected carriers, such as sickle cell anaemia (malaria resistance) and cystic fibrosis (tuberculosis resistance). It is also dangerous because we cannot tell what path this sort of action could lead us down; eugenics is not a very sensible route for humanity to take. A primary concern in this sort of testing is that the individuals that are making judgments on the results of these tests are simply not capable of making them. With any genetic test counselling is essential; without it the misery which can be caused within a family can be immense. Such things should be challenged before the situation becomes uncontrollable. During the Human Genome Project it was discovered that in excess of 1.4 million single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) are present in the human genome. Many of these are of considerable importance in testing for specific genetic conditions, even down to such things as adverse reactions to specific drugs. This will be of enormous benefit because although an adverse reaction may be a simple headache or weight loss, such a reaction can be so severe as to result in death. But SNPs have another practical application in the criminal justice system. They can be used in large panels to produce a DNA profile for identification. But even now it is reported that an American company, DNAPrint Genomics in Florida is patenting a test which tests for SNPs that correlate with eye colour. They are not trying to determine eye colour by looking at the genes which actually code for eye colour in their entirety, but at single bases differences which indicate the
DOI link for method normally found in the UK is, at the moment, slightly different. This system is called solidarity; everyone shares the cost of insurance, across the entire gamut of risk. Even so, there have been modifiers which have crept in, such as smoking or obesity. In the case of smoking it is a self-inflicted injury and, for the most part so is obesity, but not always. Generally speaking, genetic information can be ignored using this model. So we return to our original supposition: why not test everyone and modify their premiums accordingly, which is what the insurance industry would like? Well, to begin with this would be a ‘cherry picking’ exercise. Whatever is said it can be assumed that the truth, now or later, is that if insurance companies were allowed to assess individual risk someone would end up as uninsurable, while those that probably do not need insurance will be quite happily given it. So if the claim is that there is no intention to increase profits, which it has been stated to be, why bother? Is it altruism on the part of insurance companies to put premiums up for one group and down for another? This brings us to point two. If there is no desire to increase profits, why not retain the actuarial system currently in place? Actuarial tables have been used for centuries and give a good guide to the numbers of any age cohort who will die at any given time. This system works for both the insured and the insurer; to change it is to load the dice in a game of chance in favour of the dice holder. The insurers want to bet on a certainty; the rest of us want access to affordable insurance. This is the point where the legal challenge should be pursued. Discrimination in any form is both undesirable and dangerous. It is undesirable because we may lose a significant resource in the shape of our genetic diversity. After all, we have seen that some genes which are routinely described as ‘disease genes’ have turned out to confer additional fitness to the unaffected carriers, such as sickle cell anaemia (malaria resistance) and cystic fibrosis (tuberculosis resistance). It is also dangerous because we cannot tell what path this sort of action could lead us down; eugenics is not a very sensible route for humanity to take. A primary concern in this sort of testing is that the individuals that are making judgments on the results of these tests are simply not capable of making them. With any genetic test counselling is essential; without it the misery which can be caused within a family can be immense. Such things should be challenged before the situation becomes uncontrollable. During the Human Genome Project it was discovered that in excess of 1.4 million single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) are present in the human genome. Many of these are of considerable importance in testing for specific genetic conditions, even down to such things as adverse reactions to specific drugs. This will be of enormous benefit because although an adverse reaction may be a simple headache or weight loss, such a reaction can be so severe as to result in death. But SNPs have another practical application in the criminal justice system. They can be used in large panels to produce a DNA profile for identification. But even now it is reported that an American company, DNAPrint Genomics in Florida is patenting a test which tests for SNPs that correlate with eye colour. They are not trying to determine eye colour by looking at the genes which actually code for eye colour in their entirety, but at single bases differences which indicate the
method normally found in the UK is, at the moment, slightly different. This system is called solidarity; everyone shares the cost of insurance, across the entire gamut of risk. Even so, there have been modifiers which have crept in, such as smoking or obesity. In the case of smoking it is a self-inflicted injury and, for the most part so is obesity, but not always. Generally speaking, genetic information can be ignored using this model. So we return to our original supposition: why not test everyone and modify their premiums accordingly, which is what the insurance industry would like? Well, to begin with this would be a ‘cherry picking’ exercise. Whatever is said it can be assumed that the truth, now or later, is that if insurance companies were allowed to assess individual risk someone would end up as uninsurable, while those that probably do not need insurance will be quite happily given it. So if the claim is that there is no intention to increase profits, which it has been stated to be, why bother? Is it altruism on the part of insurance companies to put premiums up for one group and down for another? This brings us to point two. If there is no desire to increase profits, why not retain the actuarial system currently in place? Actuarial tables have been used for centuries and give a good guide to the numbers of any age cohort who will die at any given time. This system works for both the insured and the insurer; to change it is to load the dice in a game of chance in favour of the dice holder. The insurers want to bet on a certainty; the rest of us want access to affordable insurance. This is the point where the legal challenge should be pursued. Discrimination in any form is both undesirable and dangerous. It is undesirable because we may lose a significant resource in the shape of our genetic diversity. After all, we have seen that some genes which are routinely described as ‘disease genes’ have turned out to confer additional fitness to the unaffected carriers, such as sickle cell anaemia (malaria resistance) and cystic fibrosis (tuberculosis resistance). It is also dangerous because we cannot tell what path this sort of action could lead us down; eugenics is not a very sensible route for humanity to take. A primary concern in this sort of testing is that the individuals that are making judgments on the results of these tests are simply not capable of making them. With any genetic test counselling is essential; without it the misery which can be caused within a family can be immense. Such things should be challenged before the situation becomes uncontrollable. During the Human Genome Project it was discovered that in excess of 1.4 million single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) are present in the human genome. Many of these are of considerable importance in testing for specific genetic conditions, even down to such things as adverse reactions to specific drugs. This will be of enormous benefit because although an adverse reaction may be a simple headache or weight loss, such a reaction can be so severe as to result in death. But SNPs have another practical application in the criminal justice system. They can be used in large panels to produce a DNA profile for identification. But even now it is reported that an American company, DNAPrint Genomics in Florida is patenting a test which tests for SNPs that correlate with eye colour. They are not trying to determine eye colour by looking at the genes which actually code for eye colour in their entirety, but at single bases differences which indicate the
ABSTRACT