Download PDF
Gesundheitswesen 2001; 63(10): 583-590
DOI: 10.1055/s-2001-17877
Originalarbeit
Originalarbeiten
© Georg Thieme Verlag Stuttgart · New York

Versicherung und Genetik - Optionen zur Verhinderung unerwünschter Auswirkungen

Insurance and Genetics - Options to Prevent Undesirable ConsequencesT. McGleenan1 , U. Wiesing2
  • 1The Queen’s University of Belfast, United Kingdom
  • 2Eberhard-Karls-Universität, Tübingen
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
17 October 2001 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Zusammenfassung

Der Artikel analysiert die verschiedenen Optionen, die sich ergeben, will man die unerwünschten Resultate durch molekulargenetische Informationen im Versicherungswesen verhindern oder abmildern. Es wird zwischen Makro-, Meso- und Mikrooptionen unterschieden. Die Optionen werden auf die Wahrscheinlichkeit ihrer Realisierung hin untersucht.

Abstract

The article analyses the different options to prevent or alleviate the undesirable consequences of molecular genetic information in the sphere of insurance. It distinguishes between macro-, meso- and micro-options. The options are examined in respect of their probability to be realised.

Schlüsselwörter

Versicherung - Molekulare Genetik - Gesundheitswesen

Keywords

Insurance - Molecular Genetics - Health Care System

Literatur

  • 1 Sandberg P. Genetic information and life insurance: A proposal for an ethical European policy.  Social Science and Medicine. 1995;  40 1549
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Wortham L. Insurance classification: Too important to be left to the actuaries.  University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform. 1986;  19 349
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Miller J M. Genetic testing and insurance classification: National action can prevent discrimination based on the ‘luck of the genetic draw’.  Dickinson Law Review. 1989;  93 729
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Hudson K. Genetic discrimination and health insurance: An urgent need for reform.  Science. 1995;  270 391
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 O’Hara S. The use of genetic testing in the health insurance industry: The creation of a ‘biologic underclass’.  Southwestern University Law Review. 1993;  22 1211
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Beckwith J, Alper J S. Reconsidering genetic anti-discrimination legislation.  Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics. 1998;  26 205
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Besley T, Hall J, Preston I. Private Health Insurance and the State of the NHS. London; Institute of Fiscal Studies Report 1996
    Google Scholar
  • 8 Friedman K N. Solidarity and self-governance: What Americans still could learn from Germany’s national health insurance program.  Wisconsin International Law Journal. 1995;  13 245
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Thomas W J. The Clinton health care reform plan: A failed dramatic presentation.  Stanford Law & Policy Review. 1996;  7 83
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Brady D W, Buckley K M. Health care reform in the 103rd Congress: A predictable failure.  Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law. 1995;  20 447
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Steinmo S, Watts J. It’s the institutions stupid! Why comprehensive national health insurance always fails in America.  Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law. 1995;  20 329
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Martin C J. Stuck in neutral: Big business and the politics of national health reform.  Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law. 1995;  20 431
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Roche P, Glantz L H, Annas G J. The Genetic Privacy Act: A proposal for national legislation.  Jurimetrics. 1996;  37 1
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Pokorski R J. Insurance underwriting in the genetic era.  American Journal of Human Genetics. 1997;  60 205-208
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Pokorski R J. Use of genetic information by private insurers: Genetic advances: The perspective of an insurance medical director.  Journal of Insurance & Medicine. 1992;  24 60
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Berry R M. The Human Genome Project and the end of insurance.  University of Florida Journal of Law and Public Policy. 1996;  7 206
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 McGleenan T. Legal Regulation of Genetic Technology in the United Kingdom: Hard or Soft Options. Müller S, Simon J, Westing JW Interdisciplinary Approaches to Gene Therapy: Legal, Ethical and Scientific Aspects Heidelberg; Springer Verlag 1997
    Google Scholar
  • 18 Sahmer S. Genomanalyse und Krankenversicherung.  Versicherungsmedizin. 1995;  47 5
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Department of Trade and Industry .United Kingdom Government Response to the Human Genetics Advisory Commission’s Report on the Implications of Genetic Testing for Insurance. Oktober 1998
    Google Scholar
  • 20 Black J. Constitutionalising self-regulation.  Modern Law Review. 1996;  59 24
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Gibbons L J. No regulation, government regulation or self-regulation: Social enforcement or social contracting for governance in cyberspace.  Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy. 1997;  6 475
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Ogus A. Re-thinking self-regulation.  Oxford Journal of Legal Studies. 1995;  15 97
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Page A. Self-regulation: The constitutional dimension.  Modern Law Review. 1986;  49 141
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Black J. Regulation as facilitation: Negotiating the genetic revolution.  Modern Law Review. 1998;  61 621
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Merrill M. The sheep heard round the world: legislation vs. self-regulation of human cloning.  Kansas Journal of Law and Public Policy. 1998;  7 171
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Ogus A. Re-thinking self-regulation.  Oxford Journal of Legal Studies. 1995;  15 97
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Colby J A. An analysis of genetic discrimination legislation proposed by the 105th Congress.  American Journal of Law and Medicine. 1998;  24 443
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Clarke M. Policies and Perceptions of Insurance. Oxford; Oxford University Press 1997
    Google Scholar
  • 29 Epstein R A. The legal regulation of genetic discrimination: Old responses to new technology.  Boston University Law Review. 1994;  74 1
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Pokorski R J. Insurance underwriting in the genetic era.  American Journal of Human Genetics. 1997;  60 205
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Berry R M. The human genome project and the end of insurance.  University of Florida Journal of Law and Public Policy. 1996;  7 205
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Jacobi J V. The ends of health insurance.  University of California at Davis Law Review. 1997;  30 311
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Murtaugh C M, Kemper P, Spillman B C. Risky business: Long term care insurance underwriting.  Inquiry. 1995;  32 271
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Wortham L. Insurance classification: Too important to be left to the actuaries.  University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform. 1985;  19 349
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Catenhusen W M, Neumeister H. Enquete-Kommission des Deutschen Bundestages .Chancen und Risiken der Gentechnologie. Dokumentation des Berichts an den Deutschen Bundestag Frankfurt; Campus 1990
    Google Scholar
  • 36 Bayer R. HIV prevention and the two faces of partner notification.  American Journal of Public Health. 1992;  82 1158
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Gostin L, Hodge J G. Piercing the veil of secrecy in HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases: Theories of privacy and disclosure in partner notification.  Duke Journal of Gender Law & Policy. 1998;  5 9
    PubMedGoogle Scholar

Professor Dr. Dr Urban Wiesing

Lehrstuhl für Ethik in der Medizin
Ebrhard-Karls-Universität Tübingen

Keplerstraße 15

72074 Tübingen

      >