Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 articles
    • Obituary notices
  • Authors & Reviewers
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
    • Patient engagement
  • Physicians & Subscribers
    • Benefits for Canadian physicians
    • CPD Credits for CMA Members
    • Subscribe to CMAJ Print
    • Subscription prices
    • Obituary notices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2023
    • Avis de décès
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
CMAJ
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN
CMAJ

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 articles
    • Obituary notices
  • Authors & Reviewers
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
    • Patient engagement
  • Physicians & Subscribers
    • Benefits for Canadian physicians
    • CPD Credits for CMA Members
    • Subscribe to CMAJ Print
    • Subscription prices
    • Obituary notices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2023
    • Avis de décès
  • Visit CMAJ on Facebook
  • Follow CMAJ on Twitter
  • Follow CMAJ on Instagram
  • Listen to CMAJ podcasts
Analysis

The potential for misusing “genetic predisposition” in Canadian courts and tribunals

Roxanne Mykitiuk, Mark Pioro, Lilith Finkler and Jeff Nisker
CMAJ October 04, 2011 183 (14) 1601-1604; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.110260
Roxanne Mykitiuk
LLB SJD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Mark Pioro
MA JD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Lilith Finkler
PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jeff Nisker
MD PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: [email protected]
  • Article
  • Figures & Tables
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

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.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table 1:

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

  1. ↵
    1. Wasmuth JJ,
    2. Hewitt J,
    3. Smith B,
    4. et al
    . A highly polymorphic locus very tightly linked to the Huntington’s disease gene. Nature 1988;332:734–6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    1. Kerem B,
    2. Rommens JM,
    3. Buchanan JA,
    4. et al
    . Identification of the cystic fibrosis gene: genetic analysis. Science 1989;245:1073–80.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Narod SA,
    2. Feunteun J,
    3. Lynch HT,
    4. et al
    . Familial breast-ovarian cancer locus on chromosome 17q12–q23. Lancet 1991;338:82–3.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. Nuinoon M,
    2. Makarasara W,
    3. Mushiroda T,
    4. et al
    . A genome-wide association identified the common genetic variants influence disease severity in beta-thalassemia/hemoglobin E. Hum Genet 2010;127:303–14.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. Burgess MM,
    2. Laberge CM,
    3. Knoppers BM
    . Bioethics for clinicians: 14. Ethics and genetics in medicine. CMAJ 1998;158:1309–13.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. ↵
    1. Sherwin S,
    2. Mitchinson W
    1. Lippman A
    . The politics of health: geneticization v. health promotion. In: Sherwin S, Mitchinson W, editors. The politics of women’s health: exploring agency and autonomy. Philadelphia (PA): Temple University Press; 1988. p. 64–82.
    1. Arnason V,
    2. Hjorleifsson S
    . Geneticization and Bioethics: advancing debate and research. Med Health Care Philos 2007;10:417–31.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. Phelan JC
    . Geneticization of deviant behavior and consequences for stigma: the case of mental illness. J Health Soc Behav 2005; 46:307–22.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. ↵Decision No. 2009-821, 2009 CanLII 54985 (ABWCAC) (CanLII).
  8. Decision No. 2005-1126, 2005 CanLII 76255 (ABWCAC) (CanLII).
  9. ↵Decision No. 1052/94, [1999] O.W.S.I.A.T.D. No. 1220 (QL).
  10. ↵Decision No. 935/90I, [1991] O.W.C.A.T.D. No. 76 (QL).
  11. ↵DEG c. SAAQ, (15 September 1999), AA-65700 (QCTAQ).
  12. ↵E.T. v. Saskatchewan Government Insurance, 2005 SKAIA 40.
  13. ↵Blackwater v. Plint, 2001 BCSC 997.
  14. ↵Sparkes-Morgan v. Webb (1999), 90 A.C.W.S. (3d) 231 (NLSC).
  15. ↵R v. Campagna, 1999 CanLII 6659 (BCSC) (CanLII).
  16. ↵R. v. Luedecke, 2005 35 C.R. (6th) 205, 2005 ONCJ 294.
  17. ↵R. v. Van-Brunt, 2003 BCPC 559.
  18. ↵R. v. Eckland, 2004 BCPC 298.
  19. ↵Nguyen v. McGinn (1989), 97 A.R. 38 (QB).
  20. ↵D.H.C. v. R.S. (1990), 106 A.R. 196 (QB).
  21. ↵Decision 126, (2010 PEIWCAT).
  22. ↵Commission scolaire des Samares, (22 November 2001), Lanaudière 134151-63-9912 (QCCLP).
  23. ↵
    1. Lessenger JE,
    2. Roper GF
    1. Niv N
    . The sociologic basis of drug and alcohol addiction. In: Lessenger JE, Roper GF, editors. Drug courts: a new approach to treatment and rehabilitation. New York (NY): Springer; 2007. p. 51–72.
  24. ↵
    1. Cheung YW
    . Substance abuse and developments in harm reduction. CMAJ 2000;162:1697–700.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  25. ↵WCAT-2006-03849 (11 October 2006), (BCWCAT)
  26. ↵Chantal Barnabé et J.B. Deschamps, 2009 QCCLP 3081.
  27. ↵
    1. Parens E,
    2. Asch A
    . Disability rights critiques of prenatal genetic testing: Reflections and recommendations. Washington (DC): Georgetown University Press; 2000.
  28. ↵John Doe v. Canada (Attorney General), 294 FTR 301, 2004 FC 451.
  29. ↵Decision No. 1121/06, 2007 ONWSIAT 3330.
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Canadian Medical Association Journal: 183 (14)
CMAJ
Vol. 183, Issue 14
4 Oct 2011
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author

Article tools

Respond to this article
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
To sign up for email alerts or to access your current email alerts, enter your email address below:
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on CMAJ.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
The potential for misusing “genetic predisposition” in Canadian courts and tribunals
(Your Name) has sent you a message from CMAJ
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the CMAJ web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
The potential for misusing “genetic predisposition” in Canadian courts and tribunals
Roxanne Mykitiuk, Mark Pioro, Lilith Finkler, Jeff Nisker
CMAJ Oct 2011, 183 (14) 1601-1604; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.110260

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
‍ Request Permissions
Share
The potential for misusing “genetic predisposition” in Canadian courts and tribunals
Roxanne Mykitiuk, Mark Pioro, Lilith Finkler, Jeff Nisker
CMAJ Oct 2011, 183 (14) 1601-1604; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.110260
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Clinical conditions
    • Area of laws
    • Outcomes of legal proceedings
    • Challenges of using genetic information in court
    • Genetic reductionism
    • Closing thoughts
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Tables
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • Highlights
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Is Canada missing out? An assessment of drugs approved internationally between 2016 and 2020 and not submitted for Health Canada review
  • Questioning physicians about health conditions at medical licensure registration: How should policy evolve in Canada?
  • Physician workforce planning in Canada: the importance of accounting for population aging and changing physician hours of work
Show more Analysis

Similar Articles

Collections

  • Topics
    • Medical ethics
    • Medicine & the law (including forensic medicine)

 

View Latest Classified Ads

Content

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Collections
  • Sections
  • Blog
  • Podcasts
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • Early releases

Information for

  • Advertisers
  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • CMA Members
  • CPD credits
  • Media
  • Reprint requests
  • Subscribers

About

  • General Information
  • Journal staff
  • Editorial Board
  • Advisory Panels
  • Governance Council
  • Journal Oversight
  • Careers
  • Contact
  • Copyright and Permissions
CMAJ Group

Copyright 2023, CMA Impact Inc. or its licensors. All rights reserved. ISSN 1488-2329 (e) 0820-3946 (p)

All editorial matter in CMAJ represents the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Canadian Medical Association or its subsidiaries.

To receive any of these resources in an accessible format, please contact us at CMAJ Group, 500-1410 Blair Towers Place, Ottawa ON, K1J 9B9; p: 1-888-855-2555; e: [email protected]

CMA Civility, Accessibility, Privacy

 

Powered by HighWire