The article, written by Steven Greenhouse and published today in the New York Times, discusses the installment of a new law that focuses on how we view personalized medicine in the United States. The Genetic Informational Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) will take effect next week in American workplaces. This law prohibits discrimination based on a employee's genetic background. This is important for an employee's job security now that a company can't fire, hire, or promote an individual based on his or her genetic history. This new law also prohibits insurance companies from using genetic backgrounds to deny coverage, set premiums, or deductibles. The background checks also include the employee's immediate and extended family, as most diseases tend to stay within a family's lineage. Companies usually give benefits to those who include information on family medical histories through such means as paid time off, or lower premiums. This will not be allowed after the GINA law takes effect. the new law was passed last year by Congress in response to 63% Americans saying that they would not take genetic tests if their company could view the results. The law was passed also due to the fact that some companies such as the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company conducted genetic testing without the knowledge of its employees.
Personalized medicine seems to be taking off recently, and the GINA law shows the impact of this interesting topic. There definitely needs to be some regulation of genetic testing that occurs presently in the world. Genetic testing is used to help determine if an individual is at risk for a future medical problem or inherited disease. People are using this technology more and more in order to view personal risks such as getting breast cancer, Alzheimer's disease, heart attack, and a whole lot more. The GINA law was passed due to the pressing issue of companies responding to personalized medicine and using the new technology to determine if a person is in risk of a disease. It is not surprising that they would be interested in their employees' testings. Why would they want to promote an employee for a position that places them in an important position if the person is at risk for a disease which could hinder the company's future?
There are definitely going to be some confusion with the discrimination instances in the future. As the article suggests, there could potentially be a blurry line between firing a person due to lack of effort and firing a person because he or she has a "bad" genetic marker. Companies have to worry about the employees using their genetic histories as a discriminatory tool if they are fired for a completely different reason. Companies still have the right to view obituaries to gain inherited disease information.
No comments:
Post a Comment