“Propensity to disease” is a very broad term in the health law realm. Should “propensity to disease” be limited to those instances in which there exists a clear physical marker (chemical or biological) of an identified health problem potentially on the horizon, or is it also acceptable (legally justifiable) to include other indicators less concrete such as “family history” where there may be statistical evidence (or not?), however, no known physical marker has been clearly identified at present? Secondly, is it fundamentally fair to deny an individual a verdict of “good health” (legally speaking) specifically and ONLY because of a genetic predisposition to a particular disease?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.