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: 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.