Recently, President Bush signed GINA, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, into law. GINA makes it illegal for employers or health insurers to discriminate based on genetics. Virtually the entire genetics community has lauds this legislation, yet few have written why its wrong that employers and services review objective facts to make decisions.

“It’s not fair…” but why?

Health Care and Genetic Testing

Modern health care has evolved into more social infrastructure than private living expense, like education.

Could you imagine treating our intellectual health like our physical health? That we only learn to react to emergencies? That people are loathe to reveal a need for learning lest they are ostracized by educators? That higher learning is an elite, private service while most wallow in ignorance and fear?

Yet this is health care is today. People hide from an institution that will take their money, but avoid providing care.

Health insurance is still modeled to pay for individual emergency medical interventions. The old idea is that these interventions are rare, but if needed, are both expensive and vital —too vital to ignore, yet too expensive for any individual to afford.

The new idea is that with genomics, is not just that disease can be prevented, but that humans can be improved. It’s not “just another treatment,” it’s a fundamental shift of what health is.

I think that health insurance companies should know our genomes so that we can best plan for and provide preventive care. Rather than hiding risks, we’ll actively reveal them. Why? For better treatment. To prevent that risk from realization. To prepare for the uncommon yet necessary support one will need to continue to be a functional member of society.

But then, these won’t be insurance providers, but Health Providers.

But when an individual’s health is no longer a private asset, the idea that birth is outside societies jurisdiction must be revised. Already, we demand that life is not endangered irresponsibly . Safety isn’t optional. Ending life is a crime. One is liable for not applying the latest advances in safety and health. We fear ending life, but the chronic geometric consequences of creating it are taboo.

We don’t consider an individual’s intellect to be private. We cooperate to run schools and universities to “preemptive” learn about our world. Why shouldn’t we “preemptive” live in our world, too?

Addenum:

Very few health professionals are getting this yet. One who does is Dr. Steve Murphy of Helix Health. I highly recommend his blog: The Gene Sherpa.” Steve doesn’t necessarily share nor endorse any ideas I’ve written above .

Page: [1] [2] [3] [4]