Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-sh8wx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-23T13:24:30.718Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Recent Developments in Health Law

The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008: “First Major Civil Rights Bill of the Century” Bars Misuse of Genetic Test Results

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Abstract

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
JLME Column
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References

Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008, 110 HR 493 (2008).Google Scholar
Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008, 110 Bill Tracking HR 493 (2008).Google Scholar
Hudson, K. L., “Prohibiting Genetic Discrimination,” New England Journal of Medicine 356, no. 20 (2007): 20212023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, “Genomics and Personalized Medicine,” available at <http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/2005/605_genomics.html> (last visited October 16, 2008).+(last+visited+October+16,+2008).>Google Scholar
National Conference of State Legislatures, “State Genetics Employment Laws,” available at <http://www.ncsl.org/programs/health/genetics/ndis-crim.htm> (last visited October 16, 2008).+(last+visited+October+16,+2008).>Google Scholar
National Conference of State Legislatures, “State Anti-discrimination Laws,” available at <http://www.ncsl.org/programs/health/genetics/ndishlth.htm> (last visited October 16, 2008). A few states left the option open for insurers to consider genetic information if it was submitted voluntarily and/or would be favorable to the individual.+(last+visited+October+16,+2008).+A+few+states+left+the+option+open+for+insurers+to+consider+genetic+information+if+it+was+submitted+voluntarily+and/or+would+be+favorable+to+the+individual.>Google Scholar
Kaiser Family Foundation, Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and Uninsured, Health Insurance Coverage in America, 2006 Update, available at <http://www.kff.org/uninsured/upload/Health-Coverage-in-America-2004-Data-Update-Report.pdf> (last visited October 16, 2008).+(last+visited+October+16,+2008).>Google Scholar
National Institutes of Health National Genome Research Institute, “Existing Federal Anti-Discrimination Laws and How They Apply to Genetics,” available at <http://genome.gov/12513979> (lat visited October 16, 2008).+(lat+visited+October+16,+2008).>Google Scholar
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C €€ 12101–12213 (2000).Google Scholar
Benton, J. A., “Are Your Genes Protected? Federal Legislation and Genetic Discrimination,” Journal of Gender, Race & Justice 10 (2007): 285.Google Scholar
EEOC v. Burlington N. Santa Fe R.R., No. C01–4013(N.D. Iowa filed February 9, 2001).Google Scholar
See Benton, , supra note 17, at 297. One very common example of a late-onset genetic disorder is Huntington's Disease.Google Scholar
Colby, J. A., “An Analysis of Genetic Discrimination Legislation Proposed by the 105th Congress,” American Journal of Law & Medicine 24, no. 4 (1998): 4434480, at 467.Google Scholar
U.S. Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) as quoted in Hudson et al., “Keeping Pace with the Times — The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008,” New England Journal of Medicine 358, no. 25 (2008): 26612663, at 2662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008, supra note 1, at “Title I: Genetic Nondiscrimination in Health Insurance.” The “family member” of an individual includes dependents and first-, second-, third- and fourth-degree relatives.Google Scholar
Id. “Genetic information” refers to an individual's genetic test results, the genetic test results of family members, and the manifestation of disease or disorder in family members of the individual. If the insurer comes across this information incidentally, then there is no violation of Title I.Google Scholar
See Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008, supra note 1, at Title I, Sec. 105.Google Scholar
Id., at Title II: Prohibiting Employment Discrimination on the Basis of Genetic Information.Google Scholar
See Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008, 110 Bill Tracking H. R. 493, supra note 2.Google Scholar
Lanman, R., An Analysis of the Adequacy of Current Law in Protecting Against Genetic Discrimination in Health Insurance and Employment: A Report Commissioned by the Secretary's Advisory Committee on Genetics, Health & Society, May 2005, available at <http://www4.od.nih.gov/oba/SACGHS/reports/legal_analysis_May2005.pdf> (last visited October 16, 2008); National Partnership for Women & Families on Behalf of the Coalition for Genetic Fairness, Faces of Genetic Discrimination: How Genetic Discrimination Affects Real People, July 2004, available at <http://www.nationalpartnership.org/site/DocServer/FacesofGenetic-Discrimination.pdf?docID=971> (last visited October 16, 2008).Google Scholar
See Hudson, et al., supra note 24, at 2663.Google Scholar
See National Partnership for Women & Families, supra note 32, at 1.Google Scholar
National Institutes of Health National Genome Research Institute, Policy Recommendations for Genetic Discrimination in Insurance or Employment, last updated January 2008; Hudson, K. et al., “Genetic Discrimination and Health Insurance: An Urgent Need for Reform,” Science 270, no. 5235 (1995): 391393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008, supra note 1, at Title II, Sec. 208.Google Scholar
Carter, W. M. Jr., “A Thirteenth Amendment Framework for Combating Racial Profiling,” Harvard Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Law Review 39 (2004): 17. Carter discusses the limited and ineffective avenues to seek relief from harms associated with racial profiling when the Supreme Court ruled in Alexander v. Sandoval that regulations pursuant to Title VI prohibiting disparate-impact discrimination did not create an implied private cause of action.Google Scholar
See Benton, , supra note 17, at 309.Google Scholar
See Hudson, et al., supra note 24, at 2662.Google Scholar

References

Boucek, M. M. et al., “Pediatric Heart Transplantation After Declaration of Cardiocirculatory Death,” New England Journal of Medicine 359, no. 7 (2008): 709714.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 12-36-136 (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Truog, R. D. and Miller, F. G., “The Dead Donor Rule and Organ Transplantation,” New England Journal of Medicine 359, no. 7 (2008): 674675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Boucek, et al., supra note 1.Google Scholar
Steinbrook, R., “Organ Donation after Cardiac Death,” New England Journal of Medicine 357, no. 3 (2007): 209213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rady, M. Y. et al., “‘Non-Heart-Beating,’ or ‘Cardiac Death,’ Organ Donation: Why We Should Care,” Journal of Hospital Medicine 2, no. 5 (2007): 324334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Steinbrook, , supra note 5, at 209.Google Scholar
See Boucek, et al., supra note 1, at 709.Google Scholar
Unif. Determination of Death Act Prefatory Note (1980).Google Scholar
Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 12-36-136 (1981).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lovato v. Dist. Court In and For Tenth Judicial Dist., 198 Colo. 419, 433 (1979). See also New York City Health & Hospitals Corp. v. Sulsona, 367 N.Y.S.2d 686, 691 (Sup. Ct. 1975) (finding that brain death, the definition of death consistent with the generally accepted medical practice of doctors, is an acceptable alternative to the common law definition of cardiocirculatory death); In re Welfare of Bowman, 94 Wash.2d 407, 416 (1980) (“brain death is the legal equivalent of death becauseunder current medical science-the capacity for life is irretrievably lost when the entire brain, including the brain stem, has ceased functioning); In re Haymer, 115 Ill.App.3d 349, 355 (App. Ct. 1983) (“person is legally dead if he or she has sustained either (1) irreversible cessation of total brain function, according to usual and customary standards of medical practice, or (2) irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions, according to usual and customary standards of medical practice”).Google Scholar
Unif. Anatomical Gift Act Prefatory Note (amended 2008).Google Scholar
Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 12–34, Pt. 1, Refs & Annos (2008).Google Scholar
Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 12-34-118 (2007).Google Scholar
Unif. Anatomical Gift Act Prefatory Note (amended 2008).Google Scholar
Williams v. Hofmann, 66 Wis. 2d 145 (1974).Google Scholar
Id., at 150.Google Scholar
Id., at note 3.Google Scholar
People v. Bonilla, 467 N.Y.S.2d 599 (App. Div. 1983).Google Scholar
Id., at 408.Google Scholar
Id., at 409.Google Scholar
Bernat, J. L. et al., “Report of a National Conference on Donation after Cardiac Death,” American Journal of Transplantation 6 (2006): 281291.Google Scholar
Veatch, R. M., “Donating Hearts after Cardiac Death — Reversing the Irreversible,” New England Journal of Medicine 359, no. 7 (2008): 672673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Id., at 672.Google Scholar