Coercion, Control, and Consequence in Genetic Testing

Views on Insurance among Tested Individuals and the General Public
  • Robert N. Mayer
  • Ken R. Smith
  • Cathleen D. Zick
  • Jeffrey R. Botkin


Recent discoveries about the genetic basis of disease and well-being have raised important public policy issues involving insurance markets. These concerns involve coercion, control, and consequence. In the insurance context, coercion refers to the possibility that individuals will be forced to undergo genetic tests as a precondition for obtaining insurance. When testing occurs, control refers to questions about who will have access to genetic test results and under what conditions. Finally, consequence takes into account the various ways in which genetic test information can be used; paramount here is a concern about possible discrimination in access to insurance.


Ovarian Cancer Genetic Testing Public Opinion Life Insurance Cancer History 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Andrews, Lori (1997), ‘Body Science’, American Bar Association Journal, Vol. 83, April, pp. 44–9.Google Scholar
  2. ‘Clinton Fighting Bias Based on Genetic Histories’ (1997), San Francisco Chronicle, July 15, p.A3.Google Scholar
  3. Elmer-Dewitt, Philip (1994), ‘The Genetic Revolution,’ Time, Vol. 143, January 17, pp. 46–54.Google Scholar
  4. ‘Europe Ambivalent on Biotechnology’ (1997), Nature, Vol. 387, June 26, pp. 845–7.Google Scholar
  5. Florkowski, Wojciech J., Catherine Halbrendt, Chung L. Huang, and Lesa Sterling (1994), ‘Socioeconomic Determinants of Attitudes Toward Bioengineered Products’, Review of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 16, pp. 125–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Grobe, Deana and Robin Douthitt (1995), ‘Consumer Acceptance of Recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone: Interplay Between Beliefs and Perceived Risk’, Journal of Consumer Affairs Vol. 29,No. 1, Summer, pp. 128–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Herrmann, Sterngold, and Warland (in press), ‘Comparing Alternative Question Forms for Assessing Consumer Concerns’, Journal of Consumer Affairs, Vol. 32,No. 1, Summer.Google Scholar
  8. Hoban, Thomas, Eric Woodrum, Ronald Czaja (1992), ‘Public Opposition to Genetic Engineering’, Rural Sociology, Vol. 57,No. 4, pp. 476–93.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Holmes, Eric Mills (1996/97), ‘Solving the Insurance/Genetic Fair/Unfair Discrimination Dilemma in Light of the Human Genome Project’, Kentucky Law Journal, Vol. 85,No. 3, pp. 503–663.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Index to International Public Opinion, 1995–96 (1997), Greenwood Press: Westport, CT.Google Scholar
  11. Index to International Public Opinion, 1993–94 (1995), Greenwood Press: Westport, CT.Google Scholar
  12. Lapham, E. Virginia, Chahira Kozma, and Joan O. Weiss (1996), ‘Genetic Discrimination: Perspectives of Consumers’, Science, Vol. 274, October 25, pp. 621–5.Google Scholar
  13. Louis Harris and Associates (1997), 1992 Genetic Testing Survey, Archival Study Number S912074, Institute for Research in Social Science: Chapel Hill, NC.Google Scholar
  14. Schmitt, Frederick (1997), ‘Insurers Oppose Arizona Genetic Test Law’, National Underwriter: Life & Health/Financial Services Edition, May 19, pp. 3, 57.Google Scholar
  15. Sterngold, Arthur, Rex H. Warland, and Robert O. Herrmann (1994), ‘Do Surveys Overstate Public Concern?’ Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 58, Summer, pp. 255–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert N. Mayer
    • 1
  • Ken R. Smith
    • 1
  • Cathleen D. Zick
    • 1
  • Jeffrey R. Botkin
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Family and Consumer StudiesUniversity of UtahSalt Lake City
  2. 2.Department of PediatricsUniversity of UtahSalt Lake City

Personalised recommendations