Hacker News Reader

Comment by randyrand | Hacker News Reader

If two consenting adults want to make a agreement that includes exchange of their own genetic information, I really don't see the issue.

There are plenty of employers that don't require genetic information. If you don't want to give your genetic information to your employer it's simple, don't work there. Companies that can't hire employees go out of business. This is a self correction 'problem'. We don't need legislation here. Legislation almost always fails edge cases and is not needed for self correcting issues.

View on HN

> If two consenting adults want to make a agreement that includes exchange of their own genetic information, I really don't see the issue.

The problem is one of bargaining power: Consent must be given freely – but in cases where one party in an exchange has a lot more bargaining power, the other party often will agree to something because of fear of retribution or a threat of force. Example: If an employee is told by the boss he or she will be fired if they do not have sex right now, any consent in that scenario is not given freely, but under duress.

The boss is threatening to abuse their power if they do not have sex. An employee can sue the boss for violating the contract.

> but in cases where one party in an exchange has a lot more bargaining power, the other party often will agree to something because of fear of retribution or a threat of force.

You seem to be implying this is bad thing but it makes sense that a company (could be thousands of people) should have more bargaining power than an employee (1 person). What is the threat of force here? That is illegal. What is the retribution here if an employee chooses a different employer because the employee wants to decline testing?

what happens when all insurance plans make this a hard requirement, and you effectively can not be employed, or insured without it.

Don't think it will happen? Try to get internet access, or medical insurance without agreeing to mandatory binding arbitration (that is, signing away your ability to sue).

If it happens, then that's what employees/customers want. It's similar to democracy.

I do not want to force something on other people.

The other problem is that it is impossible to contract to give solely _your own_ genetic information: your DNA necessarily informs on your relatives in a predictable, probabilistic manner. Should they be informed that a third party can reasonably infer salient features of their genome? Should they have to consent?

If this law is passed, every insurance company will jack their rates up to make participation in wellness plans all but a requirement for those in the bottom 98%. Your employer will not have a choice of non-GATTACA health plans.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com