Run from the Genome.

• Author: Sheidlower, David I.
• Position: Biodevastation - Ethical issues surrounding human genome project - Brief Article

In the February 12, 2001 edition of the Oakland Tribune, Senator Bill Frist, M.D., was quoted as saying "There is widespread fear that an individual's genetic information will be used against them. If we truly wish to improve the quality of health care, we must begin taking steps to eliminate patients' fears." Beneath this well meaning call to action is the notion that there may be good reasons to worry about the human genome project, but that quality health care depends on the mapping of our genetic code.

Is this true? Thus far, the majority of critics of the human genome project

have been more able to point to the drawbacks and risks of the project than to suggest an alternative. One of the most seductive features of the project is that it does not discount most alternatives to conventional medicine. Acupuncture? Herbal medicine? Proponents argue that the human genome project can help. We could meas-measure who is genetically more pre-disposed to finding these alternative treatments effective.

The human genome project does not correct a single medical error. It does not solve the problem of how to pay for health care or the bigger issue of what or who should be covered. In fact, given that it may lead to expensive new treatments, it may make the financial and ethical problems around access to treatment more acute.

In this case, the medical profession measures "access to care" as separate from "quality of care." Those in the medical profession like to consider themselves as responsible for creating the best quality care their profession can deliver and leave the problem of how it's paid for to someone else. This makes them focused, not necessarily irresponsible. So, when Dr. Frist talks about improving the quality of health care he is referring to the quality of care the current system is capable of delivering, not necessarily the care you will be able to afford.

The first step to developing a different perspective lies in focusing less on the profession of medicine and how it is in conflict with the business of insurance (be it government funded or private). A true alternative relies on thinking about the output of the entire health care industry. Currently we consider that there are two industries. The health care industry is charged with delivering treatments, visits, drugs and hospital stays. And the insurance industry is responsible for paying for it. What if we considered that there was a single industry and we charged it with...