namelesstavern.net

I read an article in \. today about how IBM has created a policy for thier business that forbids using genetic testing in application screening.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/10/busin ... r=homepage

The more I thought about this the more I'm on the fence about it. If two people are hired for two jobs receiving identical salaries, but one of them is genetically prone to disease and needs to use more of the company’s resources for personal medical expense... is that person in fact being more highly compensated than the healthy and equally talented peer? If a person’s propensity to health were considered in hiring practices, perhaps this is the modern version of Darwinism. Healthier people would be more successful because corporations would compensate them better.

Being prone to disease doesn't equal getting disease. It also says nothing about the person you've hired's spouse and/or children. What if they are disease-prone? They gonna start testing the whole family now?

Hiring someone is a crapshoot, regardless. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose.

Probability and actuarial tables already greatly affect your life. They are not based on what will happen, they are based on what is most likely to happen. In example, through no fault of his own an 18 year old boy will pay more for auto insurance than a 35 year old woman. That 18 year old boy could be a far safer driver than the 35 year old woman… but most are not.

Similarly, someone who is genetically prone to a disease may never develop it as an individual. But people who fall into that category are more likely to develop the disorder than those who are not. Since we already use probability to determine what you pay for other services, like health insurance, why would it be wrong to consider a persons potential net value to a company in the hiring equation?

My point was that an employee may not be genetically prone to anything but his/her spouse might be and that'll still cost the company.

None of this takes into account productivity either.

Extending genetic screening out to family members probably would be the next step in this, if an employee wanted to provide health care to family members from their employer.

Right now factors like age of people needing insurance, general health, if they smoke or drink are considered in the rates someone would pay for insurance. Why not genetic propensity to become ill? It seems like it could probably be a more effective indicator than someone's age.

im thinking it would probably be a better idea to go after the insurance companies that are making it so difficult for businesses to keep their employees healthy and alive.

hiring based on genetics is in my eyes another form or prejudice. something out of your control shall determine your success in life, thats not good.

bottom line.

if YOU were the one with the predisopition that was BAD, whatever that was, (could be to erectile dysfunction so that means you don't have sex and you aren't as happy as other employees so you are less productive...) you wouldn't want people to dig into your DNA to find out this information

Also, if you imagine that a company counselor couldn't sit with anyone in the company for a few sessions and find plenty of justification for the execs to fire any employee you are crazy.... it is similar I think, it is seen as a matter of privacy, what your genetic makeup is

who knows, i haven't thought about it much

Right now factors like age of people needing insurance, general health, if they smoke or drink are considered in the rates someone would pay for insurance. Why not genetic propensity to become ill? It seems like it could probably be a more effective indicator than someone's age.

because smoking and drinking heavily are CONCLUSIVELY proven to cause serious health problems. Genetic predisposition to a disease is hardly conclusive proof that an individual will or won't suffer from it, its' not on the same level of causation as Smoking>Lung Cancer or drinking>Liver disease. Perhaps someday in the future, genetic disease markers might have been studied in enough detail to provide this kind of conclusive proof, but compared to the THOUSANDS of studies on age-related illness and the multitude of studies of smoking or alchohol related illness, it doesn't seem like a fair comparison.

What i'd like to see is an insurance credit for people who live a pretty healthy lifestyle. For instance, my dad is 57 years old, but he has NEVER smoked or drank excessively, he has extremely good blood pressure and cholesterol ratings, exercises every day, has an ideal weight and BMI, low stress, only been hospitalized once in the last 10 years or so...Why should he pay the same health insurance rates as the average 55 year old American guy who is probably 50 pounds overweight, has high blood pressure and cholesterol etc, chain swallows big macs...

Metranon wrote:Why should he pay the same health insurance rates as the average 55 year old American guy who is probably 50 pounds overweight, has high blood pressure and cholesterol etc, chain swallows big macs...

That all depends on the insurance company and how comprehensive their medical screening is.

2 words

hello 3rd reich (can "3rd reich" be one word please)

Are you fucking serious?

So you thin companies should be able to do genetic screaning and refuse to hire you based on their findings. Now if all these people who had some spot in their genetic makeup that is bad and no company will hire them, how do they live?

Sounds like the beginnings to what the movie Gatica feared. People who "inferior" weren't allowed to work in anything but lower jobs like cleaning and such.

why would anyone claim in red letters to be related to Vonk?

Scoota McGee wrote:I read an article in \. today about how IBM has created a policy for thier business that forbids using genetic testing in application screening.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/10/busin ... r=homepage

The more I thought about this the more I'm on the fence about it. If two people are hired for two jobs receiving identical salaries, but one of them is genetically prone to disease and needs to use more of the company’s resources for personal medical expense... is that person in fact being more highly compensated than the healthy and equally talented peer? If a person’s propensity to health were considered in hiring practices, perhaps this is the modern version of Darwinism. Healthier people would be more successful because corporations would compensate them better.

Go watch Gattaca with Ethan "Im Act Sans Emotion" Hawk and Uma "God Im fugging Ugly" Thurman. I bet the movie will change your mind.

-Duck

boybutter wrote:why would anyone claim in red letters to be related to Vonk?

Maybe cuz he IS Vonk's bro? Also, if I remember correctly (and my memory may be faulty) he didn't put that in, Vonk did.