The jurisprudence of genetic privacy

Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy

Volumn 1, Issue 3, 1998, Pages 225-233

  McGleenan, Tony ^a  

^a QUEEN'S UNIVERSITY BELFAST   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Fourth Amendment; Genetic Discrimination; Marine Insurance; National Human Genome Research Institute; Predictive Genetic Test

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; EMPLOYMENT; GENETIC SCREENING; GENETICS AND REPRODUCTION; HEALTH INSURANCE; HUMAN; INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION; LEGAL APPROACH; LEGAL ASPECT; MEDICAL ETHICS; PRIVACY; SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY;

GENETICS AND REPRODUCTION; LEGAL APPROACH;

EMPLOYMENT; ETHICS, MEDICAL; GENETIC SCREENING; HUMANS; INSURANCE, HEALTH; INTERNATIONALITY; PREJUDICE; PRIVACY;

EID: 0032227545     PISSN: 13867423     EISSN: 15728633     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1023/A:1009965009817     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. The Sunday Times: 1996, ‘Health checks that carry a high risk’, 21 July.
2. Annas, G.J., L.H. Glantz and P.A. Roche: 1995, The Genetic Privacy Act and Commentary. Boston University School of Public Health, available at http://wwwbushph.bu.edu/Depts/HealthLaw/
3. Billings, P. and J. Beckwith: 1992, ‘Genetic testing in the workplace: a view from the USA’, Trends in Genetics8, pp. 198–200.
4. Brandeis, L. and S. Warren: 1890, ‘The right to privacy’, Harvard Law Review4, pp. 193–221.
5. Breard v City of Alexandria, 1947, 46 F 2d 337, DC La.
6. Calcutt, D., 1993, Review of Press Self-Regulation, Cm 2135.
7. Chadwick, R., M. Levitt and D. Shickle (eds): 1997, The Right to Know and the Right Not to Know, Aldershot: Avebury Press.
8. Committee on Privacy and Related Matters: 1990, Report of the Committee on Privacy and Related Matters, Cm 1102.
9. Entick v Carrington: 1765, 19 State Tr 1029. European Privacy Directive, 1995: 95/46 OJ, No C 93/3, April 13.
10. Gormley, K.: 1992, ‘One hundred years of privacy’, Wisconsin Law Review, pp. 1335–1441.
11. Gostin, L.: 1991, ‘Genetic discrimination: The use of genetically based diagnostic and prognostic tests by employers and insurers’, American Journal of Law and Medicine17, pp. 109–144.
12. Gostin, L.: 1995, ‘Health information privacy’, Cornell Law Review80, pp. 451–477.
13. Gross, H.: 1971, ‘Privacy and autonomy’. In: J.R. Pennock and J. Chapman (eds.), Privacy. New York: Atherton Press.
14. Hellewell v Chief Constable of Derbyshire: 1995, 1 WLR 805.
15. Holtzman, N.A.: 1995, ‘The attempt to pass the Genetic Privacy Act in Maryland’, Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics23, pp. 367–370.
16. House of Commons, National Heritage Committee: 1993, Fourth Report. Privacy and Media Intrusion, HC 294–I.
17. House of Commons, Science and Technology Committee: 1995, Third Report. Human Genetics: The Science and Its Consequences, HC 41–I.
18. Human Genetics Advisory Commission: 1997, The Implications of Genetic Testing.
19. Jackson, J.D.: 1997, ‘Playing the culture card in resisting crossjurisdictional transplants: A comment on legal processes and national culture’, Cardozo Journal of International and Comparative Law5, pp. 51–67.
20. Kaye v Robertson: 1991, FSR 62.
21. Kevles, D.J. and L. Hood: 1992, The Code of CodesCambridge: Harvard University Press.
22. Khorasandjian v Bush: 1993, 3 WLR 476.
23. Kielstein, R. and H. Sass: 1992, ‘Right not to know or duty to know? Prenatal screening for polycystic renal disease’, Journal of Medicine and Philosophy17, pp. 395–405.
24. Malone v Lasky: 1907, 2 KB 141.
25. Malone v Metropolitan Police Commissioner: 1979, 1 Ch 344.
26. Marine Insurance Act: 1906.
27. Motherwell v Motherwell: 1976, 73 DLR (3rd) 62.
28. National Human Genome Research Institute: 1998, GeneticInformation and the Workplace. January, Available at http://www.nhgri.Hih.gov:80/HGP/Reports/genetics_workplace.html.
29. Ngwena, C. and R. Chadwick: 1993, ‘Genetic diagnostic information and the duty of confidentiality: Ethics and law’, Medical Law International1, pp. 73–95.
30. Nuffield Council on Bioethics: 1993, Genetic Screening: Legal and Ethical Issues.
31. Olmstead, v United States: 1928, 277 US at 478.
32. Parmet, W.E.: 1995, ‘Legislating privacy: The HIV experience’, Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics23, pp. 371–376.
33. Patel v Patel: 1988, 2 FLR 179.
34. Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennysylvania v Casey: 1994, 510 US 1309.
35. Prince Albert v Strange: 1849, 41 ER 1171.
36. Prosser, W.: 1960, ‘Privacy’, California Law Review48, pp. 383–316.
37. R v Khan: 1996, The Times, 5 July.
38. R v Ministry of Defence, ex parte Smith: 1996, 1 All ER 257.
39. R v Sang: 1980, AC 402.
40. Re B (a minor)(Wardship:Sterilisation): 1988, AC 199.
41. The Rees Case: 1987, 2 FLR 111.
42. Re MW (Adoption: Surrogacy): 1995, 2 FLR 759.
43. Roe v Wade: 1973, US 113.
44. Rothstein, M.A.: 1992, ‘Discrimination based on genetic information’, Jurimetrics Journal33, pp. 13–18.
45. Suter, S.M.: 1993, ‘Whose genes are these anyway? Familial conflict over access to genetic information’, Michigan Law Review91, pp. 1856–1908. DOI: 10.2307/1289655
46. Wacks, R.: 1995, Privacy and Press Freedom. London: Blackstone Press.