Genetics and Privacy

Lawmakers are close to passing a bill to prohibit insurance companies and employers from discriminating on the basis of genetic information. (HT: Dan) Their reasons for restricting the use of DNA and genetic encoding information in the determination for insurance or employment stem from a concern of the right to medical privacy and the infancy of medical knowledge on genetics and disease.

The right to medical privacy and the doctor-patient privilege is sacred to our modern society.

The fear is that a company will do a DNA “background check” on its employees or applicants to determine how many useful years of work and an estimate of healthcare costs of a person. Thus, if a person were to be genetically predisposed to breast cancer or a cardiac disease, then the company may not hire that person to save on the bottom line.

The insurance fear is tangential to the employment fear: people with “bad genes” will not be able to buy health insurance because they are “too great a risk” for the insurance companies. Remember, insurance companies are primarily investment corporations that take the premiums of their clients and invest that money in the markets for profit. The more they pay out, the less money they invest and consequently, the less money they make.

Further, medical knowledge on genes and disease is in its infancy.

Some genes seem to flag a greater probability of getting a disease, but that flag is not dispositive. A person can have a “bad gene” and never get ill, and conversely, a person with “good genes” could succumb to breast cancer. There are too many variables to the health of a person (exercise, diet, employment, emotional health, etc.) to use genetics as a deciding factor in employment or insurance decisions.

The reality of our world is that entities crave quantitative data for every decision. Statistics are in vogue with academia, the media, and the man on the street. Every week there is a new statistical study on the effects of caffeine and alcohol on health. USA Today is famous (or infamous) for its colorful charts. The RBI stat in baseball is the most overused and over-analyzed stat in all of sports. Companies are using credit scores in their determination for hiring candidates. In short, our culture has shed its ability to decide abstract ideas based on evidence and philosophies in favor of easy, mathematical decisions based on numbers. Turning to genes and the probabilities of disease are just another story in this line.

Friggin Drama UPDATE

So, there was a great backlash against the change in exam rules. Many people marched up to the dean's office to complain. Others simply stood around, complaining. Still others were jubilant that the exam would be shorter and could not see past their self interest to understand why their classmates were upset.

Isn't this the true reaction that most groups of people will have to adversity? Some complain and moan, but do nothing. Others see the change in their favor and belittle those who believe otherwise. Finally, some take action and go.

This time, I did not take action. For me, my interest lies in the shorter exam. A nine-hour exam steals my energy for two days afterward. However, as I mentioned in my previous post, I prepared for a take home exam. Either way, I gain in one respect and lose in another. So, I took no action.

The amount of drama and caucusing that resulted from this last minute change amazed me. You would think that the Dems and GOPers were fighting in the House of Representatives over funding the Iraq war. Name calling. Raised voices. Frustration. Note to the world: when it is exam time, do not provoke the law students.

***UPDATE***

Now, as I post this, I just received an email from our con law professor. She has declared that the exam is back to the original nine-hour-at-home format. However, she did mention writing more questions and "changing the exam." Call me paranoid, but it appears to me like we are going to be punished via more questions on the exam for our challenge to her authority.

The fun continues.

Friggin' Drama

Today my con law professor announced a drastic change in the rules for our exam. Instead of an all-day, take-home exam, we would face a three-hour, in-class exam. Further, she was not sure if the exam would start at 8:00 or 13:15. (Side note, I use the 24 hour clock). All of this was announced at the end of class today— one week before the exam. We will only meet one more time before the exam.

To say the least, I prepare for a nine hour take-home exam much differently than an in-class exam of a third of the time. What bothered me more is how the exact exam time and length was left in the air. Since everything is in flux, I fear the exam even more. One week before exams is no time to change the rules.

If that was not enough, she refuses to answer “any questions of substance that may be part of the exam.” That means the con law professor will not answer questions about con law. One student did try to ask a question about the right to contract and the amount of judicial review the court would exercise on a law prohibiting contract provisions. He was flatly denied. Her reasoning:

“If I answer, then you will suppose that I will not ask such a question on the exam. If I refuse to answer, then you will deduce what will be on the exam by my silence. That would be unfair.”

Hopefully, we could reasonably deduce that some sort of con law doctrine will be on the con law exam. So, as long as she answers any and all questions on the substance of con law, we would still have no indication of what exactly the exam will cover. Of course, this is logical and this professor hates logic.

I am counting down the days…

One last note: I noticed that much of this blog has thus far dealt with my life at law school. This is because I literally live at the school right now as I study for the upcoming exams. Perhaps, once this semester is over, I will be able to explore other topics.

Hang in there with me.

In Demand

So, I have two jobs line up for the summer. One is part time, the other has not been determined yet. One is with the Solicitor General for the state. The other is for a Justice on the state supreme court. Most likely, I will find a way to do both (if they are willing to share me). Both people will give FANTASTIC experience.

Who knew that I would be in such demand?

Who Am I?

I am a Christian. More specifically, I am an Evangelical Christian. Christ is my Savior, Redeemer, King, and Friend. I strive to live my best for His glory. Yet, I am fallible and still a work in progress. I am a Baptist (more technically Anabaptist) theologically but I typically attend nondenominational churches. Paul’s doctrine of the “Liberty in Christ” guides my actions.

Politically, I stand at the line between “Very Conservative with Libertarian Leanings” and “Conservative Libertarian.” The government exists only to protect life, liberty, and property. The government should not attempt to socially engineer its subjects. Being a “Christian nation” is an effect of our culture and society following the truths of Christ, which cannot be effectively mandated by law alone (see Europe’s “state churches”). However, the practice of religion in the public sphere (schools, courts, etc.) is a fundamental right of liberty and ought not be banned by an elitist judiciary. Further, abortion is homicide, and needs to the condemnation of the law (i.e. the government would be protecting life).

I am a native Coloradoan. I am proud of my home state and the rugged individualist attitude it exemplifies. As the major outpost between the coasts, Denver offers most of amenities of a major city with the ability to drive twenty minutes and be in the middle of a beautiful national park. Unfortunately, Colorado is moving away from a Wyoming attitude and more towards a California mentality. This is unfortunate. Rather than valuing freedom and self reliance, citizens are moving towards government dependency and regulation.

I am a law student. At the time of this posting, I am the newly-elected president of the school’s chapter of the Federalist Society. As a law student, I am overworked, over-caffeinated, and argumentative.

More of me will come out as this blog goes along— that is the purpose of a blog. However, this is a good introduction for now.

Registration

Today I registered for the fall term.

After the first year, the law school only requires two specific courses, and then a few courses from general categories. The specific courses are Evidence and Legal Ethics. The general categories are Seminars (2 credits), Practice (these courses presently include all clinical courses, Trial Advocacy courses, and Law Practice Management).

I was able to satisfy half of those requirements. I will be taking Evidence (a prerequisite for nearly every class) and the Seminar is going to be taught by a State Supreme Court justice. That is a good thing. I missed out on Legal Ethics (well, I’m waitlist spot number 23), but I will take it in the spring term instead.

I think I am trying to work myself to death. I am registered for 19 credits of classes. Then, I plan to join the law review (if I am accepted) and possibly the moot court too. I am president of the school’s Federalist Society chapter and active in the Christian Legal Society. I might be stretching myself too thin. No matter what, I will continue my dependence on caffeine.

I am not entirely sure which specialty to pursue. I really like appellate advocacy, where I can argue about the law (rather than facts at the trial level). I am also interested in Water and Property Law for same policy-motivated reasons. If I was looking only to make money, I might go into Intellectual Property. I don’t enjoy criminal law that much.

Either way, it is another load off of my mind. I am set for the next term. Now, off to preparing for the summer job.

The First Post

This is the first post of the new blog. I really wish I could write more right now, but I have a million things to do. I am a first year law student ("1L"). Finals start in two weeks.Yes, I started a new project when I was already busy. Get over it.

Later, I will tell you a little about myself, the purpose of this blog, and the secret to understanding women. Okay, I can't come through on the last item. But hey, two out of three isn't bad.

Oh, and hopefully my writing style will improve over time.

Later.