Taking actuarial fairness seriously: what is required for the ethical use of genetics in insurance?

IF 3.4 2区 哲学 Q1 ETHICS Journal of Law and the Biosciences Pub Date : 2026-05-14 eCollection Date: 2026-01-01 DOI:10.1093/jlb/lsag017
Harisan Nasir, Benjamin E Berkman, Leila Jamal, Chloe Connor, Anya E R Prince
{"title":"Taking actuarial fairness seriously: what is required for the ethical use of genetics in insurance?","authors":"Harisan Nasir, Benjamin E Berkman, Leila Jamal, Chloe Connor, Anya E R Prince","doi":"10.1093/jlb/lsag017","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Whether life insurers should be able to consider genetic information during underwriting is a long-standing debate often characterized by strong opinions on both sides. Insurers push for full access to applicants' genetic information, and consumer advocates often call for a ban on insurer use of the information. Both sides employ concepts of fairness and discrimination in supporting their position. This article considers the concept of actuarial fairness, where individuals are expected to pay for the risks they bring to an insurance pool. Currently, law and policy adopting this standard most often take a deferential approach, allowing insurers to utilize genetic information with wide latitude. This article takes seriously a middle-ground approach, broadly labeled as actuarial utility. Building from prior literature examining this issue, this article proposes a framework US policy can adopt to assist in the assessment of the actuarial utility of genetic information with a particular focus on emerging genetic technologies.</p>","PeriodicalId":56266,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Law and the Biosciences","volume":"13 1","pages":"lsag017"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2026-05-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13174401/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Law and the Biosciences","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsag017","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Whether life insurers should be able to consider genetic information during underwriting is a long-standing debate often characterized by strong opinions on both sides. Insurers push for full access to applicants' genetic information, and consumer advocates often call for a ban on insurer use of the information. Both sides employ concepts of fairness and discrimination in supporting their position. This article considers the concept of actuarial fairness, where individuals are expected to pay for the risks they bring to an insurance pool. Currently, law and policy adopting this standard most often take a deferential approach, allowing insurers to utilize genetic information with wide latitude. This article takes seriously a middle-ground approach, broadly labeled as actuarial utility. Building from prior literature examining this issue, this article proposes a framework US policy can adopt to assist in the assessment of the actuarial utility of genetic information with a particular focus on emerging genetic technologies.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
认真对待精算公平:在保险中道德地使用遗传学需要什么?
人寿保险公司是否应该在承保过程中考虑遗传信息是一个长期存在的争论,通常以双方的强烈意见为特征。保险公司要求全面获取申请人的基因信息,消费者权益倡导者经常呼吁禁止保险公司使用这些信息。双方都用公平和歧视的概念来支持自己的立场。本文考虑了精算公平的概念,即期望个人为他们给保险池带来的风险买单。目前,采用这一标准的法律和政策通常采取一种恭敬的方式,允许保险公司在广泛的范围内利用遗传信息。本文认真地采用了一种中间方法,广泛地称为精算实用程序。根据先前研究这一问题的文献,本文提出了一个框架,美国政策可以采用,以协助评估遗传信息的精算效用,特别关注新兴的遗传技术。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Law and the Biosciences
Journal of Law and the Biosciences Medicine-Medicine (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
7.40
自引率
5.90%
发文量
35
审稿时长
13 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Law and the Biosciences (JLB) is the first fully Open Access peer-reviewed legal journal focused on the advances at the intersection of law and the biosciences. A co-venture between Duke University, Harvard University Law School, and Stanford University, and published by Oxford University Press, this open access, online, and interdisciplinary academic journal publishes cutting-edge scholarship in this important new field. The Journal contains original and response articles, essays, and commentaries on a wide range of topics, including bioethics, neuroethics, genetics, reproductive technologies, stem cells, enhancement, patent law, and food and drug regulation. JLB is published as one volume with three issues per year with new articles posted online on an ongoing basis.
期刊最新文献
Voluntary assisted dying for dementia: international regulatory approaches and practices. From speculation to regulation: an evidence-based analysis of the EU reclassification of non-invasive brain stimulation devices. Non-approval in the sunlight: FDA's CRL disclosures, the limits of confidentiality, and lessons from the EMA. Regulating human reproductive and developmental biotechnologies: a UK reference model. The biologics manufacturing patent notice challenge: a comparative examination.
wanfang
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1