Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Behavior modification (1)
- Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad Company v. EEOC (1)
- Employment and insurance law (1)
- Fair discrimination (1)
- Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) (1)
-
- Genetics research (1)
- Joseph Millumethics (1)
- Medical coercion (1)
- Medical ethics (1)
- Medical manipulation of children’s choices (1)
- Norman-Bloodsaw v. Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (1)
- Parental control (1)
- Risk profiles and classification (1)
- Sarah R. Leiber (1)
- Self-destructive decisions (1)
- Smoking (1)
- Vaccination (1)
- Vaccine (1)
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Law
Shots For Tots?, Eric A. Feldman
Shots For Tots?, Eric A. Feldman
All Faculty Scholarship
By endorsing the use of a vaccine that makes the experience of puffing on a cigarette deeply distasteful, Lieber and Millum have taken the first few tentative steps into a future filled with medical interventions that manipulate individual preferences. It is tempting to embrace the careful arguments of “Preventing Sin” and celebrate the possibility that the profound individual and social costs of smoking will finally be tamed. Yet there is something unsettling about the possibility that parental discretion may be on the cusp of a radical expansion, one that involves a new and unexplored approach to behavior modification.
Health Insurance, Employment, And The Human Genome: Genetic Discrimination And Biobanks In The United States, Eric A. Feldman, Chelsea Darnell
Health Insurance, Employment, And The Human Genome: Genetic Discrimination And Biobanks In The United States, Eric A. Feldman, Chelsea Darnell
All Faculty Scholarship
Does genetic information warrant special legal protection, and if so how should it be protected? This essay examines the most recent (and indeed only) significant effort by the US government to prohibit genetic discrimination, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA). We argue that the legislation is unlikely to have the positive impact sought by advocates of genetic privacy and proponents of biobanks. In part, GINA disappoints because it does too little. Hailed by its promoters as “the first civil rights act of the 21st century,” GINA’s reach is in fact quite modest and its grasp even more so. But …