Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Legal Approach”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 1,405 records · Page 78Linked to original sources
PubMed1999

Genetic privacy and the law: an end to genetics exceptionalism.

While the proliferation of human genetic information promises to achieve many public benefits, the acquisition, use, retention, and disclosure of genetic data threatens individual liberties. States (and to a lesser degree, the federal government) have responded to the anticipated and actual threats of privacy invasion and discrimination by enacting several types of genetic-specific legislation. These laws emphasize the differences between genetic information and other health information. By articulating these differences, governments afford genetic data an "exceptional" status. The authors argue that genetic exceptionalism is flawed for two reasons: (1) strict protections of autonomy, privacy, and equal treatment of persons with genetic conditions threaten the accomplishment of public goods; and (2) there is no clear demarcation separating genetic data from other health data; other health data deserve protections in a national health information infrastructure. The authors present ideas for individual privacy protections that balance the societal need for genetic information and the claims for privacy by individuals and families.

Databases, Nucleic Acid↗
PubMed2000

Selective justice, genetic discrimination, and insurance: should we single out genes in our laws?

This article discusses the desirability of legislation focusing on genetic discrimination, in particular in the context of insurance. Many American states and some European countries as well as the Council of Europe have introduced protective measures against discrimination on the basis of genetic susceptibility. The author questions their effectiveness and queries whether they may be inequitable, because they fail to address more fundamental underlying issues related to the nature of insurance, access to health care, and unequal distribution of wealth. There is also a problem of definition in these statutes. They fail to capture what constitutes genetic information. Nonetheless, the author argues it is important to consider the social consequences of genetic testing. Michael Walzer's theory of justice is used to examine the role of insurance and health care. Using this approach, the author finds the American system of distribution for health care to be problematic. This is then used to inform the author's discussion of the future of health care in Canada. Anti-discrimination provisions could be used in a way that is consistent with Walzer's theory of justice. They would encompass both genetic and non-genetic health factors. These can be modelled on current anti-discrimination statutes in Canada. The author then proposes administrative committee structures to regulate the use of genetic data in Canada.

Advisory Committees↗
PubMed1992

The Estelle medical professional judgment standard: the right of those in state custody to receive high-cost medical treatments.

This Article discusses the rights of prisoners, pretrial detainees, and the involuntarily committed to receive high-cost medical treatments. More specifically, the Article analyzes U.S. Supreme Court and lower court case law dealing with the medical care rights of those in state custody and argues that, under a proper understanding of this case law, the financial considerations of states should play no role in determining the rights of these people to receive high-cost medical care. Finally, the Article defends the current medical care standard against various critiques.

Health Care Costs↗
PubMed1992

A reallocation of rights in industries with reproductive health hazards.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruling in United Automobile Workers versus Johnson Controls prohibits hiring policies that exclude fertile women from industries posing reproductive health risks to workers and fetuses. Many toxic substances that threaten the developing fetus also pose risks to adult male and female workers. Exclusionary employment policies are socially undesirable for the following reasons: they may lead to worse reproductive outcomes if the indirect effects of lower wages and less adequate health insurance in the alternative available jobs are considered. Second, the effect of such policies could damage the individual woman's overall well-being through its economic impact and her potential loss in autonomy. Third, occupational segregation into less hazardous but lower-paying jobs reinforces gender stereotypes that are restrictive to women. The Supreme Court ruling in the Johnson Controls case reaffirms the importance of the Civil Rights Act as both a shield against unfair treatment for individual women and a commitment to eradicate sexist attitudes and economic inequality throughout society.

Employment↗