The fulfilment of promises made 25 years ago to link clinical conditions with gene sequences has allowed patients and families to better understand hereditary conditions1–4 and make choices regarding prevention, early detection and treatment.2–4 There have also been warnings issued over this period regarding other purposes for which genetic information may be used, such as discrimination5 against people with a genetic predisposition for the purposes of employment or insurance. There has also been concern that the “geneticization” of health might divert focus to individual, rather than social, determinants of health and away from the communal responsibility for health.6– 8
These factors have not been comprehensively surveyed, particularly in law, in any jurisdiction. We analyzed the way in which genetic predisposition was used in Canadian courts and tribunals, including the clinical conditions for which genetic predisposition was cited, the area of law in which the case occurred, the legal issues that were raised, the results of the proceedings and the purposes for which genetic predisposition was introduced.
We searched the inclusive electronic databases of Canadian legal cases (Quicklaw, Canadian Legal Information Institute, and Société québécoise d’information juridique) and the websites of individual tribunals, using the search term “genetic predisposition.” These were exhaustive searches of both English- and French-language cases. Each case was read to determine how genetic predisposition was used in terms of the clinical condition, area of law and legal outcome. We also undertook electronic searches for the term “genetic discrimination.” The earliest case we found was decided in July 1984 and we stopped the search in May 2010. The following search terms were used: genetic predisposition, genetic pre-disposition, genetically predisposed, genetically pre-disposed, prédisposition génétique (hereinafter referred to as genetic predisposition) and genetic discrimination.
Clinical conditions
There were 490 genetic predispositions to clinical conditions cited in 468 Canadian legal cases (18 cases included claims of genetic predisposition for two or more conditions). Genetic predisposition most often referred to conditions affecting the musculoskeletal system (188 predispositions), such as osteoarthritis (40 predispositions), degenerative disc disease (32 predispositions), carpal tunnel syndrome (24 predispositions) and Dupuytren contracture (23 predispositions). The second most frequent set of diagnoses for which genetic predisposition was cited referred to conditions affecting mental health (100 predispositions), particularly mood disorders (39 predispositions), schizophrenia (12 predispositions), alcohol dependence (8 predispositions) and substance abuse (7 predispositions). Table 1 lists the clinical conditions for which genetic predispositions were argued in the cases found using our search strategy.
Clinical conditions cited in 468* Canadian courts and tribunals for which genetic predisposition was raised, and the areas of law in which the cases were argued
Area of laws
Genetic predisposition was frequently cited in labour law (368 predispositions in 355 cases), particularly in relation to conditions affecting the musculoskeletal system (176 predispositions). In workers’ compensation appeals tribunals (339 of the 355 cases dealing with labour law), employers (and sometimes tribunal medical experts) cited genetic predisposition when arguing that a disabled worker’s condition was not occupational in nature; workers, however, generally either denied the existence of a genetic predisposition or argued that their work was the cause of their injury.9–11 In some cases, workers argued that the workplace triggered or aggravated a genetic predisposition.12 It was not always possible to determine conclusively which participant had raised the issue of genetic predisposition, whether it was raised in response to a question or argument by the other party or the adjudicator, or how genetic predisposition influenced the results of the proceedings.
In insurance law, genetic predisposition was a consideration in determining whether clinical conditions, such as rheumatoid arthritis13 or seizure disorders,14 were related to a person’s injury. Similarly in tort law, where a plaintiff could only receive compensation if the condition was found to have been caused by the negligent act of the defendant, the issue of genetic predisposition was considered in relation to the cause and extent of damages suffered.15,16
In criminal law, genetic predisposition was most often used to argue the importance of an accused person’s mental condition in relation to criminal responsibility,17,18 and it was also considered when determining sentencing.19,20
In family law, genetic predisposition was taken into consideration when granting custody of a child and determining wardship. In this context, it could be argued that granting custody to a biological parent with whom a child shares a genetic predisposition could be more favourable than granting custody to adoptive parents.21,22
Outcomes of legal proceedings
Genetic predisposition was cited in cases heard in each of the provinces and the Yukon, including 175 cases in Ontario, 134 in British Columbia, 79 in Quebec and 31 in Alberta. A search of all cases for the term “genetic discrimination,” indicated that it was not raised. In 134 cases, reference to genetic predisposition was associated with an undesirable legal outcome for the person with the supposed predisposition. In 86 cases, the introduction of genetic predisposition did not harm the case of the person with the supposed genetic predisposition. In the remaining 248 cases, the legal significance of introducing the concept of genetic predisposition was not clear.
Challenges of using genetic information in court
Although increased communication of genetic information among scientists, clinicians, patients and family members can increase understanding1–4 and possibly mitigate the effects of genetic conditions, this is not the reason for presenting genetic information in courts and tribunals. Rather, genetic information is usually presented to substantiate the claim that an employee’s health problem is related to a genetic predisposition instead of an occupational injury. These cases are often workers’ compensation appeals tribunals, where the burden of proof of an occupational cause for a condition rests with the employee.
Unfortunately, adjudicators may lack the necessary scientific or clinical background to appreciate the complexity of the genetic information presented to them or to ask the nuanced questions required to place the information in the correct context. This is of particular concern given that most of the cases in which genetic predisposition was cited involved conditions affecting the musculoskeletal system and mental health — conditions for which there are nongenetic causes, such as repetitive motion23,24 or socioeconomic factors.25,26 Genetic predisposition appears even less likely as the cause of fungal infections of the toenail27 or uterine prolapse.28
Genetic reductionism
When genetic predisposition is argued in courts or tribunals as the cause of a clinical condition, more relevant occupational or social contributors may be relegated to the background. This form of genetic reductionism may be similar to disability reductionism (“letting a part stand for the whole”)29 in narrowly focusing on genetic predisposition rather than multiple physiologic and social factors. The geneticization of health contributes to a focus on individual responsibility for disease over social responsibility6–8 and may diminish the development of programs that promote health and prevent harm.
The concerns that scholars have raised over the past 25 years regarding the impact of new genetic tests on genetic reductionism6–8 were not confirmed in our analysis, as only eight cases mentioned that genetic testing occurred.30,31 The increased awareness of genetic contributors to disease generated by media reports on the Human Genome Project, and more recent reports on personalized treatment strategies, is a more likely contributor to the focus on family histories of inheritable conditions in Canadian courts and tribunals.
Closing thoughts
Genetic predisposition to clinical conditions was cited in 468 Canadian legal cases. The prominence of arguing hereditary aspects of health in labour law, most frequently as they relate to musculoskeletal and mental health, may diminish the weight Canadian courts and tribunals give to occupational, environmental and social determinants of health. Adjudicators cannot be expected to have the scientific and clinical knowledge needed to appreciate the nuances of arguments related to genetic predisposition. Although it is encouraging that we found no cases of genetic discrimination in Canadian courts and tribunals, future monitoring is required.
Key points-
Genetic predisposition has been raised in 468 cases in Canadian courts and tribunals, most frequently in cases concerning workers’ compensation.
-
Reference to genetic predisposition was associated with an undesirable legal outcome for the person with the supposed predisposition in 134 cases and with the sought-after legal outcome for those people in 86 cases.
-
Adjudicators may not appreciate the complexity of the genetic information presented, or they may not ask the nuanced questions required to place genetic information in the correct context.
-
Arguing hereditary aspects of health in labour law may diminish the weight Canadian courts and tribunals give to the occupational, environmental and social determinants of health.
Footnotes
-
Competing interests: The insititutions for which Roxanne Mykitiuk, Jeffrey Nisker and Mark Pioro work have received grants and financial support from Genome Canada. No other competing interests were declared.
-
This article has been peer reviewed.
-
Contributors: Roxanne Mykitiuk and Jeff Nisker conceived of this article. All of the authors helped draft the aritcle, revised it critically for important intellectual content and approved the final version submited for publication.
-
Funding: This analysis was funded by Genome Canada and the Ontario Genomics Institute.
References
- ↵
- ↵
- ↵
- ↵
- ↵
- ↵
- ↵Decision No. 2009-821, 2009 CanLII 54985 (ABWCAC) (CanLII).
- Decision No. 2005-1126, 2005 CanLII 76255 (ABWCAC) (CanLII).
- ↵Decision No. 1052/94, [1999] O.W.S.I.A.T.D. No. 1220 (QL).
- ↵Decision No. 935/90I, [1991] O.W.C.A.T.D. No. 76 (QL).
- ↵DEG c. SAAQ, (15 September 1999), AA-65700 (QCTAQ).
- ↵E.T. v. Saskatchewan Government Insurance, 2005 SKAIA 40.
- ↵Blackwater v. Plint, 2001 BCSC 997.
- ↵Sparkes-Morgan v. Webb (1999), 90 A.C.W.S. (3d) 231 (NLSC).
- ↵R v. Campagna, 1999 CanLII 6659 (BCSC) (CanLII).
- ↵R. v. Luedecke, 2005 35 C.R. (6th) 205, 2005 ONCJ 294.
- ↵R. v. Van-Brunt, 2003 BCPC 559.
- ↵R. v. Eckland, 2004 BCPC 298.
- ↵Nguyen v. McGinn (1989), 97 A.R. 38 (QB).
- ↵D.H.C. v. R.S. (1990), 106 A.R. 196 (QB).
- ↵Decision 126, (2010 PEIWCAT).
- ↵Commission scolaire des Samares, (22 November 2001), Lanaudière 134151-63-9912 (QCCLP).
- ↵
- ↵
- ↵WCAT-2006-03849 (11 October 2006), (BCWCAT)
- ↵Chantal Barnabé et J.B. Deschamps, 2009 QCCLP 3081.
- ↵
- ↵John Doe v. Canada (Attorney General), 294 FTR 301, 2004 FC 451.
- ↵Decision No. 1121/06, 2007 ONWSIAT 3330.