What might be the implications for insurance if such a definition was adopted?
It has been reported that the government might be considering, or the HGC might be recommending, that insurers might not be allowed to use the results of genetic tests at all. Such a proposal would have seriously adverse consequences for all those who might be seen to be at risk (on the basis of family history) but who can produce a negative test. It seems to me to be essential that such individuals (who may be 50 or more of those who have a test) should be able to use their negative status to obtain insurance at normal rates (assuming that they have no other adverse features). To require them to be underwritten as if they were at a 50% chance of being affected would be wholly unjust. This seems to mean that, if the use of the results of genetic tests were to be prohibited, the use of family history would also need to be prohibited. This would have much wider consequences than just genetic ones. There may be characteristics that are not genetic, but environmental (as in Q1), that insur
Related Questions
- What is the definition for exempted class of companies? How does a company classify into Power, Banking, Insurance and NBFC?
- What is the difference between the Canada Pension Plan definition of disability and that of private insurance companies?
- What insurance implications are there to chapter babysitting programs?
