In an article recently published in this journal, I raised a puzzle about the control of genetic information, suggesting a situation in which it might turn out that we have a duty to remain in ignorance about at least some aspects of our own genome. In this article, I propose a way that would make sense of how the puzzle arises, and offer a way to resolve it and similar puzzles in future: in essence, we would consider genetic information to be something the distribution of which may be more or less just. We would not know in advance what a just distribution would be, though, and in some cases there might still be a justice-based reason to deny a person genetic information about himself. However, others might also have justice-based claims to be able to access that information. This suggests that there is a possible world in which one person is entitled to at least some genetic information about another, while that other person—to whom the information refers—is not, and that this world would be just.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Brassington, Iain. 2011. Is there a duty to remain in ignorance? Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 32: 101–115.
Rawls, John. 1999. A theory of justice. Rev. ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Liukko, Jyri. 2010. Genetic discrimination, insurance, and solidarity: an analysis of the argumentation for fair risk classification. New Genetics and Society 29: 457–475.
HM Government and Association of British Insurers. 2005. Concordat and moratorium on genetics and insurance. London: Department of Health.
Association of British Insurers. 2011. Insurance genetics moratorium extended to 2017. News release, April 5. http://www.abi.org.uk/Media/Releases/2011/04/Insurance_Genetics_Moratorium_extended_to_2017.aspx. Accessed April 8, 2014.
Birds, John. 2013. Consumer insurance—the current law on pre-contractual information. In Consumer insurance law: disclosure, representations and basis of the contract clauses, ed. Peter Tyldesley, 1–44. Haywards Heath: Bloomsbury Professional.
Dempsey, James. 2013. Corporations and non-agential moral responsibility. Journal of Applied Philosophy 30(4): 334–350.
Dubbink, Wim, and Jeffery Smith. 2011. A political account of corporate moral responsibility. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 14: 223–246.
McGee, Andrew. 2011. The modern law of insurance. London: LexisNexis Butterworths.
Hoy, Michael, and Julia Witt. 2007. Welfare effects of banning genetic information in the life insurance market: the case of BRCA1/2 genes. Journal of Risk and Insurance 74: 523–546.
My thanks are due to participants at the workshop “Genetic Discrimination—A Many Faceted Challenge,” held at the University of Sheffield in May 2012—particularly to Ben Douglass for pointing me in the direction of the Hoy and Wick paper. Thanks also to an anonymous reader for raising the concern articulated in the penultimate section. I have not been able to address it fully given the space constraints here, but would hope to do so in future. Finally, thanks to Peter Tyldesley for allowing me to dry-run versions of this article on his undergraduate Insurance Law students at Manchester as part of the “Underwriting, Prejudice and Discrimination” session.