this post was submitted on 11 Sep 2024
252 points (99.6% liked)

World News

38978 readers
2963 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Life insurance companies will be banned from discriminating against people based on genetic testing under federal government moves designed to encourage greater use of predictive technology in preventive health.

The assistant treasurer, Stephen Jones, will announce on Wednesday that life insurers will be banned from using predictive genetic testing results in their underwriting assessments.

“This change will give Australians the confidence to undertake genetic testing without fear it will impact their ability to access financial security through life insurance,” Jones said in comments provided before the formal announcement.

top 11 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 26 points 1 month ago (2 children)

My father was right. It didn't matter how much I lied on my resume. My real C.V. was in my cells. Why should anyone invest all that money to train me when there are a thousand other applicants with far cleaner profiles.

Of course it's illegal to discriminate; "Genoism" they call it. But no one takes the laws seriously. If you refuse to disclose, they can always take a sample from a doorhandle, or a handshake. Even the saliva off your application form. And if all else fails, a perfectly legal drug test can just as easily become an illegal peek at your future in the company.

This movie stands as one of the most prescient I've ever watched. It's a shame that Nicols later works never matched it, and that this movie itself is somewhat forgotten.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

Are drug tests in a company that normal there? Unimaginable here.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

It's Niccol. I was briefly confused and thought that I somehow missed Nichelle Nichols in Gattaca.

That said, is Gattaca forgotten? And what was wrong with his later works? I haven't seen them all, but the ones I've seen have been pretty good. They're all pretty much a bleak and dire warning about our future, and Gattaca may have done it best, but there's nothing wrong with his other films.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago

I think Lord of War and Anon were his best post Gattaca. In Time was pretty "meh" in my opinion, but watchable, and the rest were forgettable.

I misspoke a bit. I don't mean that his other works are garbage by any means. In fact I quite liked Lord of War and Anon. Just meant that they never really hit the same depth of messaging that Gattaca seemed to hit.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 month ago

Wow, I had just assumed that life insurance was included in all of the genetic discrimination laws that were passed after the Human Genome Project got underway. It looks like Australia was ahead of the curve by passing legislation in 1992 (for comparison, the US passed GINA in 2008), but it's very odd to me that both of those laws excluded life insurance. I understand that insurance companies need to be able to mitigate risk, but it's a huge "fuck you" to anyone born with risky genes. It might result in slightly higher premiums for everyone, but it's a good move imo.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 month ago
[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I shudder to ask, but is this legal in the US?

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

~~Nope, it hasn't been legal for some time.~~

Edit: Sorry, I was thinking of medical insurance. The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act doesn't apply to life insurance.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago

Glad they banned it but what the hell?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago

Life(insurance)'s a gamble!

[–] [email protected] -3 points 1 month ago