Stop genetic discrimination by insurers, says watchdog
Discussion
Thoughts?
What is the difference between taking account of age or sex in these matters and taking account of your genetics.
What is the difference between taking account of age or sex in these matters and taking account of your genetics.
Telegraph said:
Stop genetic discrimination by insurers, says watchdog
By Nic Fleming, Science Correspondent
(Filed: 15/02/2006)
New laws preventing insurance companies from discriminating against people because of their genetic background should be introduced within five years, a Government adviser said yesterday.
Sir John Sulston, the vice-chairman of the Human Genetics Commission, called for a voluntary moratorium under which insurers have agreed not to penalise policyholders with certain genes to be replaced by permanent legislation when it runs out in 2011.
Yesterday The Daily Telegraph revealed that insurers were to seek permission to charge women who had genetic mutations making them susceptible to breast or ovarian cancer more for some policies.
Sir John, a joint recipient of the Nobel prize for medicine, said: "Everybody should be treated equitably regardless of their genetic inheritance. By the end of the moratorium in 2011 there will be so much more genetic information about that we are going to have to do something more robust."
Leading British insurers are preparing to seek Government approval to ask those applying for high value life insurance if they have had tests for the BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene mutations.
Women who inherit faulty genes have between a 40 and 80 per cent chance of developing breast cancer at some point in their lives.
If the Genetics and Insurance Committee (GAIC), the body that advises the Government on the issue, approves the request, women who have tested positive could be charged higher premiums or even refused insurance for life policies worth over £500,000, or critical illness policies worth over £300,000.
Currently the only genetic condition that insurers can ask potential policyholders if they have had a test for is Huntington's disease.
A spokesman for the Association of British Insurers said: "The moratorium is a voluntary agreement.
"We believe this is the correct, pragmatic way to go rather than down the legislative route. There will be a review of the moratorium in 2008 and the ABI will play a full part in that when the time comes."
One of the main fears of those opposed to the use of genetic testing by the insurance industry is that individuals may avoid having tests in order to keep their premiums low.
Chris Baxter, 49, was diagnosed with breast cancer in December 2004 and fears she may have the BRCA1 gene defect but has not been tested because of the potential impact on her finances.
Her father Wilfred died of stomach and lung cancer when she was 13 and her mother Violetta died 10 years later after suffering breast, stomach and ovarian cancer. Four aunts have died of breast cancer and her sister, who tested positive for the BRCA1 defect, died of ovarian cancer in 2002.
Because Mrs Baxter, who runs a company with her husband in Middlesborough, hopes in the future to buy a house in the country for which she will need mortgage insurance, and because she does not want her life insurance to go up, she has decided not to have a genetic test for BRCA1.
Yesterday she said: "It makes me very angry. People need to have the tests so they can be regularly monitored so that if the disease develops they can be treated early.
"This amounts to being discriminated against because you are trying to trying to look after your health."
My car insurance is more expensive because of the mistakes of others, and the area I live in.
Thats not my fault, I've no choice in the matter, therefore I shouldn't have to pay more.
Also, I'm a man and therefore pay more anyway than a woman, even though I've no choice in that matter either.
Thats not my fault, I've no choice in the matter, therefore I shouldn't have to pay more.
Also, I'm a man and therefore pay more anyway than a woman, even though I've no choice in that matter either.
Ultimately it will be pointless to have insurance, as they'll not bother covering you for anything that will probably happen to you.
Bad back, ahhh, thats not covered.
Dodgy heart, sorry, can't cover that.
Ultimately people will only be covered for things that won't go wrong anyway, and at great expense... so why bother?
If we cover against only the things that don't go wrong because of the nature of our DNA or past problems, will the policies be many times cheaper? Don't think so.
Will be a good cheap medical though
Dave
Bad back, ahhh, thats not covered.
Dodgy heart, sorry, can't cover that.
Ultimately people will only be covered for things that won't go wrong anyway, and at great expense... so why bother?
If we cover against only the things that don't go wrong because of the nature of our DNA or past problems, will the policies be many times cheaper? Don't think so.
Will be a good cheap medical though
Dave
Parrot of Doom said:
Also, I'm a man and therefore pay more anyway than a woman, even though I've no choice in that matter either.
This is of more relevance (you did choose where you lived after all).Insurers already determine the insurance we pay by such crude means as age and sex. So why all the hostility to a more precise basis dependent on your genetics?.
Yugguy said:
And you thought Gattaca was scifi.
Problem is, who amongst us is genetically perfect? Even someone as outwardly perfect looking as Schwarzenegger had a hereditary defect, a dodgy heart valve.
>> Edited by Yugguy on Wednesday 15th February 13:29
Ja, I hear what you are saying. I, in fact, am genetically perfect, vith ze blue eyes und ze blond heir just like ze Fuhrer ordered.
My vater, Heir Mengele spent much time und trouble ensuring my genetic supremacy, und I am now delighted zat zis vill be finally recognised by your glorious fascist insurance industry. Zeig Norwich Union, Zeig Prudential, Zeig Direct Line.
Parrot of Doom said:
My car insurance is more expensive because of the mistakes of others, and the area I live in.
Thats not my fault, I've no choice in the matter, therefore I shouldn't have to pay more.
Also, I'm a man and therefore pay more anyway than a woman, even though I've no choice in that matter either.
Difference to be considered is "pooled" risk versus "individual" risk.
Generally, those who drive cautiously over low miles, dont smoke, live in nice areas, exercise, are hetrosexual and use protection, dont have stressful jobs, didnt lose a parent under 65, have guard dogs, big gates, fort knox type alarms and dont sunbathe will be better of if assessed as an individual.
The rest of us wouldnt be.
It is wrong to complain that you dont have any points so pay for others when insuring the car, but dont complain when you not the youngest/fittest and need to insure your life. Invariably the issuer of the insurance is the same.
Business is like society, it enjoys the environment is creates.
Jaglover said:
Also, I'm a man and therefore pay more anyway than a woman, even though I've no choice in that matter either.
This is of more relevance (you did choose where you lived after all).Insurers already determine the insurance we pay by such crude means as age and sex. So why all the hostility to a more precise basis dependent on your genetics?.
No hostility towards it really, but if I have to pay more because I'm part of a particular group of statistics, then I see no reason why others shouldn't have to pay more because they are too (albeit different group).
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff