Opinion

DNA privacy

It is clear that many people are deciding against having a genetic profile prepared, or a DNA test as it is commonly known, because insurers are likely to require the disclosure of the results. It is entirely possible that those results will lead the insurance company to refuse to provide cover, to increase the premium or to limit the duration and extent of the cover. Health insurers, by the way, are prohibited from distinguishing between customers on such grounds as age, health and DNA test, and the health insurer NIB makes that clear in its offer of half-price DNA tests for its customers. NIB does warn those customers that a DNA test may affect some of their other insurances, and NIB itself offers one of those insurances that would almost certainly be affected, life insurance. The advantage for NIB in encouraging its customers to have a DNA test is that a person's knowledge of their health vulnerabilities may allow them to reduce that risk, and reducing the risk of such as heart attack and many cancers is very much in the commercial interests of NIB. The range of illnesses and conditions covered by a DNA test is extraordinary. Here are some listed by NIB's DNA test firm, the US-based Navigenics: abdominal aneurism, brain aneurism, breast cancer, Alzheimer's disease, diabetes (type 2), heart attack, lung cancer, melanoma, multiple sclerosis, prostate cancer, stomach cancer, colon cancer and glaucoma. For most of the illnesses forewarned is forearmed but the problem of disclosure dissuades many from seeking that advantage.

A DNA test may be best seen as just another medical test. An insurer can, and often does, require prospective customers to undergo a medical examination, which delves into many issues of the utmost privacy, so why should it not be free to require a DNA test? Is an existing health threat, such as untreatable high blood pressure disclosed in a medical examination, any less private than a DNA test's finding of elevated risk of Alzhermer's disease? Should insurers be free to demand a DNA test or should they be barred from even asking for the results of such a test?

Posted By: Jeff Corbett on 22/02/2010 10:01:00 AM | Comments (25)

Share on
Facebook

Tweet on
Twitter

Email to
a friend

comments

Date: Newest first | Oldest first

Life insurance applications currently usually ask for the age of death of your parents, and the causes of death. If your father died of heart disease and your mother of arthritis then the insurance company can already make guesses about you. The knowledge from a DNA test you and your doctor conduct could help you test for any diseases you could develop and allow early treatment.

Posted by John, 22/02/2010 10:33:07 AM, on The Herald

Of course DNA test results should be disclosed to a prospective insurer. Insurers accept policies on the basis of actuarial risks. i.e. they know that x amount in each 100,000 people aged y years are going to die or suffer a serious illness. If the risk is outside the norm then they will either refuse cover or ask for a lager premium. If you had a DNA test and it showed you had a far greater likelihood of contracting a major medical condition you'd have to be tempted to load up on insurance. Insurers blindly accepting customers with higher risk profiles will eventually lead to higher insurance costs for everyone. Just going to the doctor can lead to the diagnosis of many conditions that can alter or eliminate your eligibility for insurance. High blood pressure is a good example. This would be required to be disclosed to the insurer as well. If the applicant is in possession of any information that would materially affect the insurers decision to offer insurance on standard terms and this is not disclosed then in the event of a claim the insurer can quite rightly refuse to pay This is the way it should be and I hope it stays this way for the benefit of all of us.

Posted by Brando, 22/02/2010 10:44:36 AM, on The Herald

This type of genetic predisposition is, at best, an indicator. It is wonderful and high tech and requires incredibly smart people to determine such factors, but they can never 100% say that you will suffer from ANYTHING. Sometimes it seems as though there is more focus on finding connected genes than there is on cures. As most of the diseases mentioned in Jeff's column are multi factorial, it is arguably easier to find a statisitcally provable genetic link than a cure on the ground in real life. At best, the genetic link may lead to one - preferably one less damaging than, say, chemotherapy. Life insurance exists for a reason. A change such as this would see mortgages foreclosed, and families bankrupted because as a financial result of an uninsured loss of a loved one wo could not be affordably insured. Incredible social cost would be the result. It is ironic that both discovery of genetic links and insurance are both such black arts that only the initiated can understand!!! Blow the insurance companies - if I have to tajke my chances, so should they.

Posted by harold, 22/02/2010 11:12:23 AM, on The Herald

i reckon that everyone should have a DNA test done at birth. this would ensure the "parents", as identified on birth certificates, are correct. many men for too long have paid money to women for kids that weren't even theirs. the statistic regarding the number of men who think they have fathered children and actually have not is staggering. thats probably another topic right there JC.

Posted by judgedredd, 22/02/2010 11:14:15 AM, on The Herald

I have no doubt that in the future, DNA testing will be carried out on probably everyone. I can see a time when you take your baby to have his/her MMR jab and a swab is taken for DNA analysis. Its simply an extension of those questionnaires when they ask family history questions regarding heart disease and diabetes etc. If you can idenitfy early that you have a potential risk of certain ailments, then you can deal with this as you go through life. I'm at risk of both heart disease and type 2 diabetes and have taken this into acount in my eating/exercise regimes since my late 20's. DNA is just another, more accurante and scientifically credible, tool in assisting in managment of your health! Whether insurance companies get this info is a difficult question - but now they have the right to know about your previous medical ailments, family history etc, so why not risks identifeid through DNA profiling - whats the difference?

Posted by Humpty Tomato, 22/02/2010 11:56:04 AM, on The Herald

vexed question. Many would argue that this loads the dice in favour of the insurers, but if they don't have access then as suggested above the insured parties could load up their coverage from a position of knowledge of higher risk. The disadvantage is then to the insurers and ultimately other insured parties through higher premiums. No comments from the DS on this Jeff? Maybe he's busy...

Posted by mikey, 22/02/2010 12:11:46 PM, on The Herald

I believe he is very busy.

Posted by Jeff Corbett on 22/02/2010 12:25:41 PM

Why shouln't they have access to these types of records to assist in the making of a commercial decision.. Like privacy, nothing out there is private anymore. Everybody is on a computer base somewhere for something. Only people objecting would be people with something to hide. Besides if they pay for it, it may just alert me or the person supplying the sample to a treatable medical condition we were otherwise unaware of. Bottom line, you are not forced to supply your DNA. Dont give it and go without the cover.

Posted by MizJasper, 22/02/2010 12:20:40 PM, on The Herald

there is a national geographic project that can identify what tribe your ancestors came from or something like that. But if personality is genetic we could probably pick those that were descendents of attila the hun and ghengis khan? https://genographic.nationalgeogr aphic.com/genographic/index.html

Posted by national geographic, 22/02/2010 1:05:29 PM, on The Herald

I think DNA should be given at birth for a multitude of reasons. Preventative health being the main reason. Also for those little juvinile delinquints so we know what crimes thay have actually done. I could imagine if we had everyones DNA profile, there would be a hell of alot less break and Enter's. Anyway back on topic. I don't see why Health Insurance should be treated any different to any other type of insurance. It should all be on risk. You don't insure your car with the same premium as a 18 yr old male so why should i pay the same helth insurance premium as a 65 year old? Higher risk higher cost. Socialising health premiums is not the way to encourage younger people into it.

Posted by Nafe, 22/02/2010 1:08:17 PM, on The Herald

the DS is also on his best behavior , having tasted soap and water everytime he thought of being a name-caller. Who said he was incorrigable? I doubt if we will hear from him untill he works out why he has the taste everytime he thinks of calling someone a name?

Posted by blindfreddy, 22/02/2010 1:09:36 PM, on The Herald

1 | 2 | 3 | next >