Genetic Exceptionalism & Legislative Pragmatism: Can Passing Antidiscrimination Laws Ever be a Bad Idea? Yes, If Broad Policy Reform is Abandoned in Favor of Genetic-Specific Legislation. But in Spite of Its Serious Flaws, Both in Concept and in Practice, Genetic-Specific Legislation is Sometimes Worth Passing Anyway‪.‬

One of the most important and contentious policy issues surrounding genetics is whether genetic information should be treated separately from other medical information. The view that genetics raises distinct issues is what Thomas Murray labeled "genetic exceptionalism," borrowing from the earlier term "HIV exceptionalism." (1) The issue of whether the use of genetic information should be addressed separately from other health information is not merely an academic concern, however. Since the Human Genome Project began in 1990, nearly every state has enacted legislation prohibiting genetic discrimination in health insurance; two-thirds of the states have enacted laws prohibiting genetic discrimination in employment, and other state laws have been enacted dealing with genetic discrimination in life insurance, genetic privacy, and genetic testing. (2) Bills in Congress also would prohibit genetic discrimination in health insurance and employment. (3) Much has been written on the issue. (4) Most commentators have cautioned against genetic exceptionalism, but to no avail. (5) Legislators seem enamored of genetic-specific laws. Possibly, legislators actually believe that genetic-specific laws are the best way to protect privacy and combat discrimination. Or perhaps they just think such laws are better than nothing, even though they recognize that the laws are flawed conceptually and in practice. Many legislators who hold the latter view undoubtedly also have concluded that more general laws dealing with such contentious issues as access to health care and employment discrimination have little chance of passage.