• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.18 no.1
• /
• pp.237-264
• /
• 2017

With the onset of the Human Genome Project, social concerns about 'genetic information discrimination' have been raised, but the problem has not yet been highlighted in Korea. However, non-medical institutions' genetic testing which is related to disease prevention could be partially allowed under the revised "Bioethics and Safety Act" from June 30, 2016. In the case of one domestic insurance company, DTC genetic testing was provided for the new customer of cancer insurance as a complimentary service, which made the social changes related to the recognition of the genetic testing. At a time when precision medicine is becoming a new standard for medical care, discipline on genetic information discrimination has become a problem that can not be delayed anymore. Article 46 and 67 of the Bioethics Act stipulate the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of genetic information and penalties for its violation. However, these broad principles alone can not solve the problems in specific genetic information utilization areas such as insurance and employment. The United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, and Germany have different regulations that prohibit genetic information based discrimination. In the United States, Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act takes a form that adds to the existing law about the prohibition of genetic information discrimination. In addition, the range of genetic information includes the results of genetic tests of individuals and their families, including "family history". Canada has recently enacted legislation in 2017, expanding coverage to general transactions of goods or services in addition to insurance and employment. The United Kingdom deals only with 'predictive genetic testing results of individuals'. In the case of insurance, the UK government and Association of British Insurers (ABI) agree to abide by a policy framework ('Concordat') for cooperation that provides that insurers' use of genetic information is transparent, fair and subject to regular reviews; and remain committed to the voluntary Moratorium on insurers' use of predictive genetic test results until 1 November 2019, and a review of the Concordat in 2016. In the case of employment, The ICO's 'Employment Practices Code (2011)' is used as a guideline. In Germany, Human Genetic Examination Act(Gesetz ${\ddot{u}}ber$ genetische Untersuchungen bei Menschen) stipulates a principle ban on the demand for genetic testing and the submission of results in employment and insurance. The evaluation of the effectiveness of regulatory framework, as well as the form and scope of the discipline is different from country to country. In light of this, it would be desirable for the issue of genetic information discrimination in Korea to be addressed based on the review of related regulations, the participation of experts, and the cooperation of stakeholders.

• Development and Reproduction
• /
• v.25 no.2
• /
• pp.113-121
• /
• 2021

This article aims to introduce German discussion on the approval of the non-invasive prenatal diagnosis (NIPD), which started with the development of PrenaTest^® by LifeCodexx AG. The discussion started with the concern that the non-invasive nature of NIPD, such as PrenaTest^®, may rapidly expand the use and scope of similar tests, thus leading to a new era of eugenics. Based on this concern, the need for clear clinical guidelines on specific indications for NIPD has been suggested. Along the same line, it was discussed whether PrenaTest^® is against the Basic Law prohibiting discrimination on grounds of disability and whether the test is outside the scope of the purpose of gene testing limited by Genetic Diagnosis Act. Through such discussion, the Federal Ministry of Health of Germany established the preconditions for inclusion of NIPD in the German public health insurance system. For this, the German motherhood guideline was amended and the information for the insured persons provided to pregnant women was included in the amended guideline. Such discussion made in Germany provides insight on which points should be considered when various gene testings are accepted in Korea, in which genetic communication has not been systematized yet. In particular, German counseling system for pregnant women will provide valuable insights for Korea where the direction for regulations on abortion has not been established even after the ruling by the Constitutional Court that charges for abortion are against the constitution.