Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Unjustified Discrimination: Is the Moratorium on the use of Genetic Test Results by Insurers a Contradiction in Terms?

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Health Care Analysis Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper considers the legal position of genetic test results in insurance law in England and Wales. The strict position is that this information is material to the decision of the insurer to offer insurance cover and should be disclosed by insurance applicants. However, the British Government and the Association of British Insurers have agreed to a moratorium on the use of genetic test results in insurance, which will run until 2014. The moratorium prohibits unfavourable treatment of insurance clients on their basis of their genetics, unless it can be justified. In this paper, I consider the notion of genetic discrimination and ask whether it is possible to justify the concept in such a way that its existence should be accepted. The paper suggests that the insurance industry and the general public have different viewpoints on the concept of discrimination, and that this causes much of the disagreement over the issue of using genetic test results in insurance.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Emphasis added.

  2. Bell v Lever Bros Ltd [1932] A C 161, 227; Banque Keyser SA v Skandia (UK) Ins Co Ltd [1990] 1 QB 665, 769.

  3. Carter v Boehm (1766) 3 Burr 1905, 1909–1910.

  4. ‘From the beginning'. Marine Insurance Act 1906, s 18(1): 'Subject to the provisions of this section, the assured must disclose to the insurer, before the contract is concluded, every material circumstance which is known to the assured, and the assured is deemed to know every circumstance which, in the ordinary course of business, ought to be known by him. If the assured fails to make such disclosure, the insurer may avoid the contract'. The duty of good faith is applicable to all classes of insurance: Lindenau v Desborough (1828) 8 B&C 586; Brownlie v Campbell (1879–80) LR 5 App Cas 925, 954; Seaton v Heath [1899] 1 QB 782; Krantz v Allan (1921) 9 Lloyd's Rep 410, 412; Godfrey v Britannic Ass Co Ltd [1963] 2 Lloyd's Rep 515, 528.

  5. Cornhill Insurance Co Ltd v L&B Assenheim (1937) 58 Lloyd's Rep 27; Marks v First Federal Ins Co (1963) 6 WIR 185; Manifest Shipping Co Ltd v Uni-Polaris Co Ltd, The Star Sea [2001] UKHL 1; [2003] 1 AC 469.

  6. Marine Insurance Act 1906, s 18(2) confirmed in Lambert v Cooperative Insurance Society [1975] 2 Lloyd's Rep 485; Pan Atlantic Insurance Company v Pine Top Insurance Company Limited [1995] 1 AC 501.

  7. Race Relations Act 1976.

  8. Sex Discrimination Act 1975.

  9. Public Order Act 1986.

  10. I am grateful to Julian Savulescu, John Harris and colleagues from the University of Oxford and the Institute for Science, Ethics and Innovation at the University of Manchester for discussion of this issue at the Moral Science–Science, Ethics and Innovation Work in Progress Workshop, Oxford, March 2008.

  11. There may be a minority who do support this particular method of social division, but we are not concerned with the details of their views.

  12. Neither is Angus Macdonald. In 'The Story of the Tossers' [21] he suggests that the actuarial profession does not, and should not, have the last word on fairness in insurance. It is important for the profession to continue to examine their approach, and to be sure that it is the right approach, taking into consideration the views of the rest of the world. It is only in this manner that insurance can continue to be accepted as valid in society.

  13. This would be the case in states where there is no national health service. In a state which did have national health provision, health insurance is about easier and quicker access.

Abbreviations

ABI:

Association of British Insurers

BRCA1/2:

BReast CAncer susceptibility

HGC:

Human Genetics Commission

HNPCC:

Hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer

References

  1. Allen, G. (1997). The social and economic origins of genetic determinism: A case history of the American Eugenics Movement, 1900–1940 and its lessons for today. Genetica, 99, 77–88.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Anonymous (2001). Government endorses a 5 year moratorium on genetic testing and insurance “Opportunity to Develop a Lasting Consensus” says ABI (Association of British Insurers Press Release) (23 October 2001) 71/01. http://www.abi.org.uk/newsreleases/default.asp?display=month&year=2001&month=10. Accessed 19 June 2009.

  3. Anonymous (2004). How homosexuality is “Inherited”. BBC News (13 October 2004). http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3735668.stm. Accessed 16 May 2009.

  4. Anonymous (2005). Armed forces code of conduct (Armed Forces Code of Social Conduct: Policy Statement and the Service Test 21 April 2005). http://www.proud2serve.net/military/codeofconduct.htm. Accessed 19 November 2007.

  5. Anonymous (2008). Insurance genetics moratorium extended to 2014 (Association of British Insurers Press Release) (13 June 2008) 39/08. http://www.abi.org.uk/Newsreleases/viewNewsRelease.asp?nrid=16274. Accessed 17 June 2009.

  6. Birds, J. (2007). Birds’ modern insurance law. London: Thomson Sweet and Maxwell.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Daykin, C., Akers, D., Macdonald, A., McGleenan, T., Paul, D., & Turvey, P. (2003). Genetics and insurance? Some social policy issues. British Actuarial Journal, 9, 787–830.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Department of Health and Association of British Insurers (2005). Concordat and moratorium on genetics and insurance. http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_4105905. Accessed 17 June 2009.

  9. Halldenius, L. (2005). Dissecting “Discrimination”. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 14, 455–463.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Hellman, D. (2003). What makes genetic discrimination exceptional? American Journal of Law and Medicine, 29, 77–116.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Henderson, M. (2008). British team discovers obesity gene. Times (London 5 May 2008). http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article3872868.ece. Accessed 16 May 2009.

  12. Holt, T. (1991). Flying Dutch. London: Orbit.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Human Genetics Commission (2009). Human genetics commission response to the discrimination law review consultation, a framework for fairness: Proposals for a single equality bill for Great Britain (Response to Consultation). http://www.equalities.gov.uk/equality_bill/introduction.aspx. Accessed 17 June 2009 (undated).

  14. Joly, Y., Knoppers, B. M., & Godard, B. (2003). Genetic information and life insurance: A “Real” risk? European Journal of Human Genetics, 11, 561–564.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Juengst, E. T. (2004). FACE Facts: Why human genetics will always provoke bioethics. Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics, 32, 267–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Kirby, D. (2000). The new genetics in cinema: Genetic determinism and gene therapy in “GATTACA”. Science Fiction Studies, 27, 193–215.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Leigh, S. (1998). The freedom to underwrite. In T. Sorrell (Ed.), Health care, ethics and insurance (pp. 11–53). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Lewens, T. (2002). Development aid: On ontogeny and ethics. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biology and Biomedical Science, 33, 195–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Liedtke, P. M. (2007). What’s insurance to a modern economy? The Geneva Papers, 32, 211–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Low, L., King, S., & Wilkie, T. (1998). Genetic discrimination in life insurance: Empirical evidence from a cross sectional survey of genetic support groups in the United Kingdom. British Medical Journal, 317, 1632–1635.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Macdonald, A. (1994). The story of the tossers. http://www.ma.hw.ac.uk/~angus/papers/tossers.pdf. Accessed 10 July 2009.

  22. Matloff, E. T., Shappell, H., Brierly, K., Bernhardt, B. A., McKinnon, W., & Peshkin, B. N. (2000). What would you do? Specialists' perspectives on cancer genetic testing, prophylactic surgery, and insurance discrimination. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 18, 2484–2492.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Moultrie, T. A., & Thomas, R. G. (2009). The right to underwrite? An actuarial perspective with a difference. http://www.guythomas.org.uk/pdf/rtu.pdf. Accessed 11 June 2009 (undated).

  24. Niccol, A. (1997). GATTACA. (Film) Columbia Pictures.

  25. Nowlan, W. (2002). A rational view of insurance and genetic discrimination. Science, 297, 195–196.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Rawls, J. (1999). A theory of justice. Oxford: OUP.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Richards, M. (2001). How distinctive is genetic information? Studies in History and Philosophy of Biology and Biomedical Science, 32, 663–687.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Rothstein, M. A., & Anderlik, M. R. (2001). What is genetic discrimination, and when and how can it be prevented? Genetics in Medicine, 3, 354–358.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Silver, L. (1997). Genetics goes to hollywood. Nature Genetics, 17, 260–262.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Smith, R., & Raithatha, N. (2006). Why disclosure of genetic tests for health insurance should be voluntary. Journal of Health Services Research and Policy, 11, 184–186.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Wood, D. A., & Williams, C. A., Jr. (1964). High cash value life insurance policies and unfair discrimination. The Journal of Risk and Insurance, 31, 557–572.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work has been funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Council. The author would like to thank John Birds, John Coggon, colleagues at the Centre for Social Ethics and Policy at the University of Manchester, and the anonymous reviewers.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Sussex Law School, School of Law, Politics and Sociology, University of Sussex, Falmer, East Sussex, BN1 9QQ, UK

    Ruth Wilkinson

Authors
  1. Ruth Wilkinson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ruth Wilkinson.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wilkinson, R. Unjustified Discrimination: Is the Moratorium on the use of Genetic Test Results by Insurers a Contradiction in Terms?. Health Care Anal 18, 279–293 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10728-009-0137-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10728-009-0137-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation