I was shocked that a company would secretly test its employees. Their defense was awful. Even if they were doing it to see if the injuries were work related they still should have had consent. The whole thing seemed unethical and I'm not surprised they didn't try and fight the case in court. The insurance dropping the boy was really unethical. I wonder how they found out the boy had the disease though? I find it really sad that companies can be so profit driven that they will do unethical things to make money. It's a good thing GINA was passed. I'm curious about who the one representative was that voted against it and why.

I find it not fair for companies to use information such as genetic probability for a certain disease against a person. Using such information should be considered ethically wrong especially if they are using it as a reason to hire or not hire. I am surprised that more people have not taken more cases to court involving discrimination by using testing such as genetics. I believe that the government needs to make laws and regulations that are much stricter especially for insurance companies. I am against the action of the insurance company that dropped coverage on a young boy who has Fragile X Syndrome, and believe that the company needs to understand how morally wrong they were in their decision.

It is unethical to subject employees to health tests. The threat of firing the man for resisting to take the test was wrong. It took away his freedom. Also the motive behind the test was also wrong. The company did not care about their employees' health; they only cared about how much insurance would be needed to cover the medical expenses. I do not agree with the unethical acts. However, if I were to look at the situation from the insurance's perspective, it is very expensive if everyone employed under the BNSF had a disease. It is still not correct to overlook the ethical action just to override the costly price. The government needs to make stricter laws about health discrimination. Just as with race and gender, the person does not have control over their genetic health condition.

After reading the above post, I just remembered that there was a obgyn physician here,in South Carolina who performed tubal ligations in women of low socioeconomic levels whose child he had just delivered.The new mothers had no idea that they were not going to be able to have any more children.He made the decision for them, since in his opinion they could not afford another child, therefore he Thought that he was doing a good deed. The physician was totally unethical, just like the employers who genetically tested their employees and the insurance companies who dropped the boy with the X-linked disorder. The employee who mentioned of possibly having the autosomal dominant disorder was immediately fired. That seems totally heartless! With a parent diagnosed with Hungtington, not only did she know that she was going to soon lose her parent, but also that there was a 50% chance that the girl was going to follow the same faith in the next twenty years or so.

One thing that we need to keep in mind though is that not enough discrimination studies have been analyzed and that many times people twist the truth and lose their jobs due to poor performance and not solely their genes.

However, genes belong to the person and inquiring and testing them is like forcing yourself on a person, unwillingly. It is an act of rape where human rights are totally violated!

I agree that some idea of this \"discrimination\" of employees based on their genetic makeup is unethical. We have to keep in mind though that their is more than one route to handle things like this. Also, keep in mind that business owners need to be able to run a business, more importantly get to choose what to do with their property (their business). I know things get a little hairy when they directly affect human beings. Keep in mind that employers must offer something worth working for their employees which may very well be a place that actually wants high disease risk employees based on genetics or offer to not look at the information to take a hiring step up to other employers. Sometimes it's better to figure things out on our own, and learn from our mistakes rather than having someone else tell us how to handle our business. I'm sure we've felt this way before when our parents have us do something in a certain way that we really do not want to. Then, we do it anyway and we learn from it. Then, we never make the mistake again.

After reading this article I was most of all shocked to learn that companies were really discriminating against individuals. How is genetic discrimination any different from racial discrimination? The fact that these people were being judged on aspects of their life that they couldn't change was wrong. I think that more action has to be taken against these types of discrimination. The story of the company testing its employees secretly was another example of how wrong this type of discrimination is. If I had been in that situation and had been tested for genetic conditions unkowingly I would have been furious. I would have been dissapointed in my lack of privacy and the treatment of the company towards its employees.

I thought it was interesting to see how unanimous the decision was when proposed to the House of Representatives. This is understandable though. It is easy to see why employers and insurance companies would want to discriminate based on the results of genetic information. If they were allowed to do so, it could save them a lot of money. Obviously the railroad company does not want to hire individuals with increased risks for carpel tunnel syndrome. The work efficiency and duration of employment will be longer for those people who aren't subject to development of this particular disease that significantly impairs your wrist function. However, I 100% agree with this law. It is the only way to keep the playing field even when applying for employment and insurance. In my opinion, what we don't know won't hurt us and we need to let fate take its course a little bit.

Reading this was such a shock to me. I couldn't imagine if I had a genetic condition and was have unequal opportunities because of it. Especially if I was just at a risk for developing something. I think that it's incredibly unethical and that health insurance companies need to realize that they are taking a risk with anyone. I'm not into politics at all but these situations make you wonder if universal health care really would be effective, or if it would help at all with these situations. Personally, I just wish that there was something we could do so that this type of thing would never happen again.

As pointed out by other students, I believe that using genetic test results to determine who to employ is not right. In my opinion, if they are qualified to perform the job, then they should be given the opportunity to work in that position. The laws for using genetic information should be the same as the rules set forth in the American Disabilities Act.

Just like everyone else, I was shocked when I read this. This is extremely unethical to test someone and then to discriminate against them for a genetic condition. If all companies did this, we would have a lot of people that need help that wouldn't be able to get it because they wouldn't have a job or insurance. If they are a good employee and can do their job well it shouldn't matter what their genetic makeup is.

I found the insurance company that dropped the family because genetic testing revealed Fragile X Syndrome the most disturbing part of this material. Based on this case we could all theoretically be dropped by our insurance companies because by their logic any serious illness we develop could be traced back to a genetic disposition, and therefore termed a \"preexisting condition\". As the information from genetic testing becomes more and more accessible we have a growing need to develop legislation that protects both employees and families. As the article suggests, I think a good place to begin is a \"comprehensive investigation\" of some of the prior claims of abuse of genetic information.

Reading the article, I believe that the company has the right to test their employees for ailments that are the cause of work related activities. For any reason other than this, the company is being unethical and immoral. A company cannot base who they hire on their genetics. There are many occasions when people with disabilities have the mindset and determination that sets them ahead compared to people without disabilities.

I was appalled when I read this article. An employee should be fired over something they can control, not their genes. If an employee decides it is in their best interest to get a test done so they can prepare for the future, a company should not be able to take advantage of that. A company picking and choosing which employees they want based on genetics parallels, in my opinion, to companies discriminating on race. Genetics and race, are both things that an individual cannot do anything about. Therefore, it is wrong to discriminate for genetics' test results that may or may not be correct.

There is obviously good reasoning behind employers and insurance companies wanting to know what their customers genetics are. Healthy employees and insurance customers provide the greatest profit for businesses. However, an individual has no say about his/her genetics and genome profiles. I was very appalled by the case study involving the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railroad where they secretly tested their employees for diseases such as alcoholism and diabetes. I agree with GINA in that every individual has a right to privately keep their genetics testing in private if they choose to get one.

I remember the day when the lawyer came in during PMC meeting and talked about the legal issues with genetic testing and how it should be protected. However he also mentioned that the laws are falling even far behind the development of the technology. I believe that unless the people shows the symptoms of disease and clinically diagnosed with it, the people should not be considered as a patient with preexisting condition. Furthermore, with accountable care act, I believe the the insurance company cannot deny or delay the coverage of preexisting conditions, which indicates that the genetic predisposition should not be the reason why to be fired or discriminated unless the symptoms have impaired the proper function with the duties required for the job.

First I will start off by saying that I believe that everyone has a complete right to privacy, especially regarding genetic information. Although health is very important in corporate america in relation to work attendance and performance, I dont think there should be any discrimination based on genetic information. The Burlington Railroad case was extremely eye opening and appalling. Not only is confidentiality extremely important but performing tests without the prior knowledge of the patient or subject is illegal. I wouldnt want to work for companies that were that deceptive anyway.