Currently, there is debate about life insurance companies' use of genetic information for assessing applicants. In his early 20s, James (pseudonym) was denied full life insurance cover because he revealed that he had discussed genetic testing with a genetic counsellor. He was later tested and found to carry a mutation in the MSH6 gene; after disclosing this, he was denied cover for cancer by two other life insurance companies. Unsatisfied with the insurance companies' risk assessments, and based on his understanding that regular colonoscopy significantly reduced his risk of cancer, James made a complaint to the Australian Human Rights Commission. After informing the third insurance company that he had done so, he was offered full coverage, which suggests that the company did not have actuarial data to justify its decision. This case provides evidence of the high level of initiative and proactivity required for a consumer to achieve a fair result. Few Australians would be in a position to pursue the level of research and advocacy undertaken by James (a professional with scientific training).We call on a collaborative approach between industry, government and researchers to address the issues that James's case raises about genetic testing and life insurance.

Item Type:	Refereed Article
Research Division:	Law and Legal Studies
Research Group:	Public law
Research Field:	Public law not elsewhere classified
Objective Division:	Law, Politics and Community Services
Objective Group:	Justice and the law
Objective Field:	Justice and the law not elsewhere classified
UTAS Author:	Otlowski, MFA (Professor Margaret Otlowski)
ID Code:	88267
Year Published:	2013
Web of Science® Times Cited:	19
Deposited By:	Law
Deposited On:	2014-01-23
Last Modified:	2018-03-08
Downloads:	0