In my last year of high school, we had to debate the ethics of a DNA tracking system.
One argument in the textbook in opposition to it was that ''insurance companies would know about people's illnesses and treat the customer unfairly in light of this new piece of information'.
I didn't think much of it at the time but I just thought tonight, hang on, how is that unfair? If somebody has a chronic illness it is unfair for the company not to know about it.
BTW I do not support a DNA trcking system, rather i thought that was a very weak argument against it.
Makes you wonder what a warped defintion of fairness we have.
youngandinquisitive:''insurance companies would know about people's illnesses and treat the customer unfairly in light of this new piece of information'.
youngandinquisitive:I didn't think much of it at the time but I just thought tonight, hang on, how is that unfair?
youngandinquisitive:If somebody has a chronic illness it is unfair for the company not to know about it.
DNA is only one part of the equation for disease. The environment a person lives in, the foods they consume, and their personal habits (drinking, smoking, drugs, etc.) also play a role.
A question to answer is whether or not the accuracy of DNA testing is good enough.
There's also a benefit. If a person knows what diseases he or she is susceptible to, then preventive measures can be taken. The science of gene therapy could evolve to a point where some diseases may be cured. Wouldn't you want your insurance company to cover such procedures?
I don't think this is a matter of ethics or fairness. Both parties simply have more information, and may choose accordingly. Both parties agree upon a mutually beneficial price.
If you try to make an agreement on a product you know is flawed, such as a lemon of a car, then you're participating in fraud.
As for using DNA to track people, it depend on who's using it. Since I am against any government, a government-run DNA tracking system is not a good idea (to put it politely). If we're talking about evidence used in a legitimate crime, then that's acceptable provided it's accurate. If we're talking about commercial use, then that's acceptable as long as both parties are in agreement for it's use.
One of the issues with DNA is that there may be enough of it that's readily available so as to render it as nonproperty. We shed the stuff all the time, virtually giving it away. The means to collect this information will become more accessible. Our DNA could be similar to air, something we do not own. Claims that DNA are our property could very well break down.