SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
A vote in Canada's Parliament to approve a genetic privacy bill is creating a self-inflicted political headache for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's Liberal government—and could result in a relatively rare and unusual court case.
The Genetic Non-Discrimination Act, originally introduced in 2013 by now-retired Liberal Senator James Cowan, is aimed at preventing the use of information generated by genetic tests to deny health insurance, employment, and housing, or to influence child custody and adoption decisions. It calls for fines of up to $740,000 and prison terms of up to 5 years for anyone who requires any Canadian to undergo a genetic test, or to disclose test results, in order to obtain insurance or enter into legal or business relationships. The bill bars discrimination on the grounds of genetics, and the sharing of genetic test results without written consent (with exemptions for researchers and doctors).
Supporters said the law is needed to encourage Canadians to make greater use of genetic testing. Currently, they claimed, many Canadians refuse genetic tests in the course of care or clinical trials because they fear insurers or others could use the results against them. But opponents of the bill, including health and life insurers, argued a ban would increase treatment and insurance costs. Instead, insurers support a voluntary code regulating the use of genetic tests in underwriting life insurance policies; it would allow insurers to require tests only for policies worth more than $185,500. Trudeau's Liberal Party cabinet also formally opposed the measure, with Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould arguing that the bill is unconstitutional because it intrudes on powers given to Canada's 13 provincial and territorial governments to regulate insurance.
(Score: 2) by dyingtolive on Sunday March 12 2017, @09:25PM (7 children)
Well, I like it based upon a cursory glance. Barring any convincing arguments otherwise, I wish we had something here similar in the works. Judging from the stranglehold our health care overlords have, I'm not so hopeful though.
Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 12 2017, @09:31PM (6 children)
How close we are to the sort of eugenics database wet dream that the Nazis and many white Americans (if not Canadians) were dreaming of in the 1920s-50s.
The only reason the shit went out of style was because of the bad PR the Nazis created for it, otherwise we very well might have had a far more selective populace than we already did (As an example they were forcibly sterilizing anybody considered 'retarded' in the US from the 30s until the 70s at least)
(Score: 2) by dyingtolive on Sunday March 12 2017, @09:44PM (3 children)
Only that much more reason we need to resist DNA collection harder now. It's far more worthwhile to fear than a lot of the feelgoods people are freaking about now. And that really makes me sad, because I think we could do great (in the genuine sense, not the Orange sense) things with such things, if we could just drop that impulse to be shitbags about it. But I think we're far closer to going wrong with it than we are right at this point in time, so I err on the side of caution, yet again.
Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 12 2017, @10:07PM (2 children)
That might be the case, but it might also not be the case.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Monday March 13 2017, @03:04PM (1 child)
Some people say the sun rises in the east, some say in the west. The truth is probably somewhere in between.
Right?
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Monday March 13 2017, @04:56PM
Well...actually it is true that the truth is somewhere in between...even on the equator the exact direction at which the sun rises depends on the time of year, though in parts of the world (I think it's the definition of tropics) the sun does rise in the East twice a year.
That "The sun rises in the East" is a conventional truth rather than an actual truth.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Sunday March 12 2017, @11:42PM (1 child)
Some context for the AC's post:
A Brutal Chapter In North Carolina's Eugenics Past [npr.org]
Payments Start For N.C. Eugenics Victims, But Many Won't Qualify [npr.org]
Justice for North Carolina Eugenics Program Victims: Forced Sterilization in North Carolina [ncaj.com]
On A 'Eugenics Registry,' A Record Of California's Thousands Of Sterilizations [npr.org]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Monday March 13 2017, @07:09AM
Unfortunately, Canada had eugenics [wikipedia.org] as well.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Appalbarry on Sunday March 12 2017, @09:50PM (3 children)
insurers support a voluntary code
Yeah, because voluntary regulation has been so successful in the past.
Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould arguing that the bill is unconstitutional because it intrudes on powers given to Canada's 13 provincial and territorial governments to regulate insurance.
Hmmm. Sounds like the insurance companies have been lobbying hard in Ottawa. The argument for federal regulation like this is presumably to balance the sometimes bone-headed actions of provincial governments. Protecting personal privacy is not the same as "regulating insurance companies."
(Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Sunday March 12 2017, @10:19PM
Yep, and 185K is small change. There can't be a limit on this.
(Score: 2) by dry on Monday March 13 2017, @01:26AM
Funny she mentions the territories as they are not sovereign and only have the powers that the Federal government has given them.
One solution is to ask the Supreme Court to rule on the Constitutionality of the law as the Federal Government can override the Provinces under certain conditions such as POGG https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace,_order,_and_good_government#The_National_Concern_Branch [wikipedia.org] as this seems to be in the national interest.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @09:28AM
It worked very well … for the shareholders. That's because of the hidden conditional that invisibly sticks at the end of every statement in a voluntary regulation: as long as it doesn't reduce profits.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday March 13 2017, @04:02AM (3 children)
Koko (the gorilla) communicates in ASL and is higher functioning than thousands of humans around the world. Does this mean that nobody can discriminate against Koko in Canada based on her genetic profile? Do you have to be homo sapiens to enter into a contract? How do you go about proving that without genetics?
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @09:23AM (2 children)
I'd say the question you're asking is not addressed by this law, and is a perfect example of a question that needs to be answered in court, or it needs a specific definition of who can enter into contracts.
Personally, I see no reason that apes, or in general animals who show clear signs of being self-aware, should have less rights than humans.
The people who do live in the same regions of the world see things differently, and they're not the only ones.
So you either choose to act the way you feel is right, and then you enter a war you cannot win, or you let go of your principles (this is just one of the scenarios that show even decent people can't be decent politicians).
What I can do right now: keep talking to people and keep pointing out these animals are smart.
When there are enough of us to demand some kind of policy change, push for the policy change.
Somewhat related, I think a lot of the people who don't like to think of gorillas and chimps as having a soul would also consider retarded humans to be without a soul, if they were enough to compete for resources.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Monday March 13 2017, @03:08PM (1 child)
As I recall there was a time not so long ago when the retarded were in fact widely considered to be subhuman creatures, though I can't say whether there was a common consensus about the question of "soul".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @06:57PM
I used the word "soul" with a specific reason.
A friend of mine, US citizen of asian descent, told me that not that long ago in the US it was not considered a big deal if you hit chinese people with your car, because they don't have souls anyway. Taking into account what "christians" were doing to the native americans only a hundred and fifty years ago, I believe him, and the wording seems perfectly adequate.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @09:20AM
From the summary it doesn't get clear: Would the new law improve genetic privacy, or would it weaken it?
Anyway, this [soylentnews.org] story is clearly related.