|
|
Discrimination Against Genetic Disorders - The US Military Practice of
"Test & Be Discharged or Court-Martialed" |
Some of these were posted on an HD on-line group August 18, 2007. This
article states that even when the Senate passes the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act it will not apply
to military personnel. It's outrageous to think that our tax dollars that provide the discretionary money [not mandatory]
for funding the Defense Budget yet they don't have to abide by the same laws that apply to the rest of us!
Bottom line: If you or your child are at-risk for HD and enlist [or are enlisted] in
the military never tell anyone of your at-risk status unless you've been enlisted 8 years or more.
According to this article, they can order you to get the genetic testing if they know your at-risk status then medically
discharge you without benefits if you test positive, even if you're not symptomatic! Period. And if you
get the test outside the military you could be court-martialed because that violates the uniform code of
military justice. What justice? [Justice is defined as a concept involving the fair, moral, and impartial
treatment of all persons, especially in law.]
Testing Discouraged - Military doctors now discourage their patients from getting
potentially life-saving genetic tests.
.......recalled counseling a 22-year-old soldier whose father had just been diagnosed with Huntington's
disease. The soldier had 50-50 odds of developing the disease. A neurologist at Walter Reed Army Medical Center ordered
a genetic test for Huntington's, and it turned up positive. "He was discharged from the
military on the basis of the Huntington's disease gene even though, at that level of gene expansion, there was expected
to be another 25 years before he would display any symptoms"
For many in the military, the best course is to simply refuse all genetic tests,
even though they may be needed for an accurate diagnosis. Getting genetic tests through civilian channels is not an
option because it would violate the uniform code of military justice. "You could get court-martialed
if it were revealed that you had sought medical treatment or testing outside the system" |
US Military Practices Genetic Discrimination in Denying
Benefits
By Karen Kaplan - The Los Angeles Times
Saturday 18 August 2007
Those medically discharged with genetic diseases are left without disability or retirement benefits.
Some are fighting back.
Click above title to read entire article.
Testing Discouraged
Military doctors now discourage their patients from getting potentially life-saving genetic tests, undermining
their ability to provide top-notch care. "If someone called me up with regard to genetic testing, I had to say, 'That might
not be something you want to pursue,' " Nunes said. "That's very hard to say."
In her 26 years in the Air Force, Fries said she often dissuaded women from getting tested for the BRCA1 and
BRCA2 mutations that dramatically increase their risk of developing breast cancer.
She recalled counseling a 22-year-old soldier whose father had just been diagnosed with Huntington's
disease. The soldier had 50-50 odds of developing the disease. A neurologist at Walter Reed Army Medical Center ordered
a genetic test for Huntington's, and it turned up positive.
"He was discharged from the military on the basis of the Huntington's disease gene even though,
at that level of gene expansion, there was expected to be another 25 years before he would display any symptoms," said Fries,
now director of genetics and fetal medicine at Washington Hospital Center in Washington, D.C.
Click on title to read entire article.
Does the 2002 change pass constitutional muster?
Does a commander violate the Fourth Amendment’s ban against
unreasonable searches and seizures when he requires a service member to provide a DNA sample that can later
be used as evidence against him in a criminal prosecution, absent a warrant, probable cause, or even individualized suspicion
that he has committed a crime? |
January 10, 2006 Genetics Perspectives on Policy Seminar - click on title to read full
article.
In any workplace, genetic testing raises complex and troubling questions. But when the boss is the U.S. military and
the employee wears a uniform, those dilemmas multiply. The law provides civilian workers some protections against certain
uses of their genetic information, and Congress is considering comprehensive legislation on the privacy of genetic testing.
But these safeguards don’t equally apply to military service members, who work in a unique environment.
The
federal government may not request, require or use genetic information from civilian employees. The military, however, routinely
considers genetic information from service members -- to make assignments, terminate or promote, and decide health care benefits.
At minimum, the military uses genetic test results to keep enlisted individuals safe, avoiding harmful environments or jobs
that could trigger disease or exacerbate a health condition. But some question whether the military sufficiently protects
the genetic information of enlisted personnel—or adequately informs them how that information is used.
What
is fair for America’s men and women in uniform? How can the armed forces strike the right balance between its needs
and those of enlisted personnel? A panel of experts, before an audience of journalists, policy analysts, scientists, health
care professionals and military service members, wrestled with these questions at Genes in Uniform: Don't Test, Don't Tell,
a Genetics Perspectives on Policy (GenePOPS) seminar held January 10 at the Johns Hopkins University campus in Washington,
D.C.
In conclusion, participants agreed, the military needs to re-examine, and strengthen, the rights of
enlisted men and women. Legislation pending in Congress may do this for civilian workers. But it will have no effect on America’s
men and women in uniform. Debates over coverage remain.
|
Mapping Public Policy for Genetic Technologies
Click title to read full article.
In January 1995, two members of the Marine Corps, Lance Cpl. John C. Mayfield III and
Cpl. Josephy Vlacovsky, reported for what they expected to be a routine physical. But when they were informed that they were
to provide blood and saliva for DNA sampling, they refused. |
The two Marines agreed that using DNA to identify remains was benign, but they expressed concern that the
military could, at some point in the future, use the DNA samples for some less innocuous purpose, such as the diagnosis of
hereditary disease or disorders, and then could disseminate such information. Mayfield and
Vlacovsky were court-martialed for refusing to obey an order from an officer. |
|
