Topic Writing Assignment #2

Rebecca Cupp

Dr. Fantz

Topic Writing Assignment #2

October 17, 2013

Dean Smith,

            What a pessimistic world we live in, to believe one nucleobase (Brooker 217-218), one adenine, could determine my academic success. How dare I be prosecuted by what I cannot change, and notified of what levels of education I can manage. These “recent discoveries” are not only subject to a thorough peer-review, but to an ethical review. How can one judge another on what they cannot change? To separate individuals into genomic categories, like cash crops, is to discriminate against them, to degrade them, and to delude them into the same narrow-mindedness as the State of Georgia. Manifested in statute V.123a is the most intolerant piece of legislation since Dred Scott v. Sandford, to declare that a man could not be free in a free state based on the pre-existing condition of his skin is nothing less than to declare a woman unfit to learn based on the pre-existing condition of her DNA (“Dred Scott v. Standford”) Every individual can be the embodiment of rags to riches, of pre-disposition to prosperity. To succeed, every individual must have equal access to healthcare, education and employment, free of discrimination.

            Every individual has the right to live, and thus, the right to be healthy. Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to offer each citizen affordable and accessible healthcare. Health insurance companies, however, need to make money, and pre-existing genetic conditions, including pre-dispositions to diseases, would have to fetch higher premiums to compete with the profitability of other, healthier customers. The 1996 Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPPA) was the first federal stand against genetic discrimination, restricting any exclusion of healthcare due to a pre-existing condition to 12 months for any individual on a group plan, and eliminating exclusions for pre-existing conditions for persons previously covered for over 12 months under group plans. Genetic information excluded, or undiscovered from a customer’s current diagnosis by a medical professional ceased to constitute a pre-existing condition.  President Bush followed with the passing of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) in May 2008, obstructing insurance companies’ rights to charge higher premiums for any pre-existing condition, including pre-disposition to developing any future illness. GINA also limited the ability of any health insurance to deny coverage to any healthy individual. Finally, the Affordable Care Act guaranteed insurance for both the group and individual insurance market, that is, every group or individual who requests healthcare will receive it, and can only vary their premium expenses based on a few factors, typically age and geographic area, to allow competition with private insurance companies (“Genetic Discrimination”).

            Just as every individual has the right to be healthy, every individual has the right to their own education and equal opportunity employment. In February 2000, Bill Clinton passed the Executive order to Prohibit Discrimination in Federal Employment of Genetic Information, restricting the collection and use of employee’s genetic information from an employer for the purpose of hiring, firing, or promotions. The circumstances behind legal genetic screening have been further defined by the American Medical Association Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs, which include, but are not limited to: the disease must rapidly develop past the reach of preventative medicine, the genetic test is highly accurate, over 99%, the genetic variation  results in an “unusually elevated susceptibility to occupational illness”, undue expense is needed to protect employees from potential toxic substances in the workplace, and any worker screen must provide informed consent (“Genetic Discrimination”).

            The ethics behind these laws can easily be applied to education. Every individual has the right to pursue an education, and based on GINA, admission counselors, much like employer’s, should not use genetic information as a basis for accepting, rejecting, or revoking admission to their institution. Even if genetic information was used with consent, it does not satisfy any other circumstance set by the AMA: a negative correlation with intelligence is not highly accurate, negative correlation with intelligence is not a disease, nor can it rapidly develop or be monitored closely, and a negative correlation with intelligence does not result in any heighted chance of illness nor does it cause undue expenses toward other students. There is no reason to genetically screen students, nor is it ethical to use their genetic information to segregate individual human beings into categories, ripe for discrimination.

            If you have any ounce of intelligence, Dean Smith, check out your college’s elementary statistics book: correlation does not constitute causation (Triola 151-162). Insurance companies, employers, and colleges should not choose their customers, employees and students based off pre-existing conditions, and genetic information cannot be used to distinguish which employees, teachers, and students would prosper at Agnes Scott College. It is scientifically, statistically, and ethically wrong to judge any individual based on pre-existing conditions, including genomic data.

Works Cited

Bloomberg Law. "Dred Scott v. Sandford." Case Briefs. N.p., n.d. Web. 17 Oct. 2013. <http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/property/property-law-keyed-to-singer/property-in-people/dred-scott-v-sandford/>.

Brooker, Robert J. Biology. Boston: McGraw-Hill Higher Education, 2008. Print.

"Genetic Discrimination." National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) - Homepage. N.p., n.d. Web. 17 Oct. 2013. <http://www.genome.gov/10002077>.

Triola, Mario F. Elementary Statistics. 7th ed. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1998. Print.