DNA Sequencing Services Reveal Unexpected Prevalence of Incest
March 19, 2024 12:19 PM Subscribe

An unexpected side effect of genealogical DNA sequencing has been to reveal something of the true dimensions of the population of children born of incest. In almost all cases where both parents can be identified, the father is either the girl's father or an older brother. Archive link.
posted by Aardvark Cheeselog (67 comments total) 33 users marked this as a favorite

Jesus fuck.

Steve sounds like a rock. This shouldn't happen to anyone, but it sounds like he handled it with all the grace a person could.
posted by Countess Elena at 12:37 PM on March 19 [25 favorites]

(addendum: if I never hear another joke about "inbred hicks" in rural areas, it'll be too soon. This data shows that it's too real to make fun of and too widespread to pin on one population.)
posted by Countess Elena at 12:39 PM on March 19 [30 favorites]

Verifying what feminist activists have been saying for decades. Ooof.
posted by pantarei70 at 12:40 PM on March 19 [38 favorites]

I can't see the article from where I'm at, but it looks like it's been known for a while that genetic testing can pick this up pretty easily. (That article cites a letter in The Lancet from 2011.)
posted by Halloween Jack at 12:47 PM on March 19 [1 favorite]

Heartbreaking, but sadly not surprising. This is an ugly reality that we like to pretend never happened or is solely in the past.
posted by The Manwich Horror at 12:48 PM on March 19 [2 favorites]

Does anyone happen to know the percentage who discover a mystery dad from a DNA test?
posted by Brian B. at 12:53 PM on March 19 [2 favorites]

"The geneticist Jim Wilson, at the University of Edinburgh, was shocked by the frequency he found in the U.K. Biobank, an anonymized research database: One in 7,000 people, according to his unpublished analysis, was born to parents who were first-degree relatives—a brother and a sister or a parent and a child. 'That’s way, way more than I think many people would ever imagine,' he told me. And this number is just a floor: It reflects only the cases that resulted in pregnancy, that did not end in miscarriage or abortion, and that led to the birth of a child who grew into an adult who volunteered for a research study."

I think that last part is a bit misleading: the number is a floor. We don't know for sure if the rate is higher or lower, but it is almost certainly higher, since the abortion rate must be higher among pregnancies due to incest, and the miscarriage rate is likely to be (both for genetic reasons and because many of those pregnancies occurred as a result of rape of girls). People who know that they are the result of incest are less likely to share their DNA for research, but I have no idea what portion of those people know; as the article shows, it's often kept secret.

One in 7,000 is rare, but it's something like 100 times higher than previously thought: "In 1975 ... a psychiatric textbook put the frequency of incest at one in a million."
posted by Mr.Know-it-some at 1:06 PM on March 19 [13 favorites]

Does anyone happen to know the percentage who discover a mystery dad from a DNA test?

There's some data in this Wikipedia article, but the conclusion seems to be no: estimates vary too much for us to know the actual percentage.
posted by Mr.Know-it-some at 1:09 PM on March 19 [2 favorites]

That 1 in 7000 number is *highly* misleading as an indicator of how common incest is, because of how tiny a subset it is of the real number.

- MOST men who molest their daughters, granddaughters, younger sisters, etc. do so without a pregnancy ever resulting. This is incest too but it's not getting counted..
- MOST victims of incest who do get pregnant have miscarriages or get abortions or die/are killed before they give birth (pregnancy is the second riskiest time for female victims ito getting murdered by their male abuser - leaving the abuser is the top). They aren't counted in the numbers here.
- MOST children of incest never sign up for DNA testing. They aren't being counted.
- MOST children of incest who do sign up for DNA testing choose not to seek or obtain information about whether they are a product of incest. They aren't being counted. This is not a service that is automatically provided, the system doesn't automatically check whether the father is related to the mother.
- MOST children of incest who do sign up for DNA testing and also choose to obtain information about whether they are a product of incest, do not choose to make that data available for studies.

At each stage in this funnel you have orders of magnitude of data falling off the charts. What remains is a tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of a minority compared to the sum total of victims of incest. And the fact that this tiny fractional minority is still one hundred times the original textbook estimate of the total rate of incest? That is staggering.
posted by MiraK at 1:15 PM on March 19 [67 favorites]

I can't find it at the moment, but I recall academics saying it was better to use cats as examples when teaching genetics instead of humans, to avoid the situation where a student finds out during class that someone they thought was their biological parent cannot be due to genetic factors.

I was visiting the University of Washington Genetics Lab and asked them if they did a test on a student as part of school trips. They said no, for basically the same reason.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 1:20 PM on March 19 [6 favorites]

I don't know about specifically incest, but the subreddit for genealogy sees a post, oh, every few days from someone who discovers that their father isn't who they thought it was. They call it a Novel Paternity Event, or "NPE" for short.

And I am so impressed by and proud of all of them for remaining calm and compassionate in these threads: they break the news gently to the confused poster, and offer advice about whether and how to discuss it.

Given the frequency of such posts, I think it must be waaaay more common than most people suspect.
posted by wenestvedt at 1:23 PM on March 19 [10 favorites]

This is such a hard subject to talk about. Like, why are there sociopaths? Because "sociopath" is an ecological niche with some evolutionary/reproductive benefit. So is "rapist" and I guess "incestor." Natural selection just isn't right or wrong, it's just .... what it is.

I hate this result, but I'm grateful for the study.
posted by seanmpuckett at 1:40 PM on March 19 [3 favorites]

That 1 in 7000 number is *highly* misleading as an indicator of how common incest is, because of how tiny a subset it is of the real number.

I don’t think it was ever intended to be used that way?

We already know how bad the child sexual abuse problem is. There is no need for such an indirect indicator.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 1:41 PM on March 19 [8 favorites]

"In 1975, around the time of Steve’s birth, a psychiatric textbook put the frequency of incest at one in a million." Startlingly, those those hysterically shrill wacky feminists were on to something back then, huh? Huh.

I would imagine it's shocking enough to discover that the person you thought was your dad, is in fact some unknown person. I remember hearing about kids in the late 70's or early 80's learning about inheritance of human blood types in HS bio classes and then figuring out that there was a "Novel Paternity Event" (I like that term!), but this has to be orders of magnitude more upsetting. Good lord.
posted by rmd1023 at 1:44 PM on March 19 [2 favorites]

I friend of mine does amateur volunteer genealogy research to help people connect the dots with family. they do not always get answer they want or imagine!!! I can't imagine how upsetting it must be to find out ancestor/relative X is not uncle but in fact daddy! :\
posted by supermedusa at 1:44 PM on March 19

I'm not related to anyone in my family and while my father has offered to buy me a genetic test I really am not willing to open that can of worms.

I might be interested in testing for genetic disease markers, but I don't think there's any way to get genetic testing without having your data uploaded into a database that will link it with others.

I'm content with the family that raised me. I don't need to know who I share chemistry with.

I came to the exact same conclusion, but from the other direction. As far as I know I'm related genetically to my family, but what really matters to me is that they cared for me and raised me. I have zero interest in learning about any additional genetic connections, since I know who loved me already.

My main reaction to the article in the FPP is that this is sad to read. The number should be around zero, not sadly common.
posted by Dip Flash at 1:51 PM on March 19 [2 favorites]

Does anyone happen to know the percentage who discover a mystery dad from a DNA test?

My friend of 40 years found out her "dad" is not her dad. Neither dad knew.
posted by dobbs at 1:54 PM on March 19 [2 favorites]

I was adopted. Grew up knowing so. Not much else. I sent my sample in to ancestry.com, and found a brother, 2 years older. We are amazingly similar. Different families, but adjacent communities. But, his parents were cool, and gave him his birth last name, for his first name.
posted by Goofyy at 1:59 PM on March 19 [14 favorites]

you are just a MeFi alias to me but for all that I'm glad you're in the world

the world would be a lot worse without you in it, so thanks
posted by elkevelvet at 2:00 PM on March 19 [28 favorites]

Well, that was a pretty horrifying read. I wish nothing but peace to every child who discovers this about themselves.
posted by jacquilynne at 2:10 PM on March 19 [18 favorites]

I might be interested in testing for genetic disease markers, but I don't think there's any way to get genetic testing without having your data uploaded into a database that will link it with others.
Yeah, I'd also like to see if I have anything in my genes that I should watch out for, and I'd be interested in learning the usual general stuff (x percent this, y percent that), but I don't want to upload my blueprints for posterity. I'm sure they could arrange anonymous testing, but I haven't seen such a thing advertised.
posted by pracowity at 2:13 PM on March 19 [1 favorite]

MiraK - for the record, UK Biobank is a different sort of project from normal DNA testing enterprises. It takes samples from willing volunteers who give up their DNA for whatever researchers want, which is how they were able to sample such a large group for this specific thing.
posted by lokta at 2:30 PM on March 19 [4 favorites]

A good friend of ours got her kid a DNA test, after her dad got his done. The results did not include her dad as one of her son's genetic relatives (i.e., our friend's "dad" was not really her dad). He shot himself a few weeks later.

These tests can really unleash some chaos.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 2:31 PM on March 19 [9 favorites]

I don't think there's any way to get genetic testing without having your data uploaded into a database that will link it with others

I mean, on 23andMe, at least, you can do it but opt out of the sharing data with others or for research purposes parts. You can also do it under a pseudonym with an email address for that purpose, if you want.
posted by limeonaire at 2:38 PM on March 19 [1 favorite]

I mean, on 23andMe, at least, you can do it but opt out of the sharing data with others or for research purposes parts.

I would need to do more in-depth research about what they mean about this. Because if they're putting it in their database, it's still in their database. and I think 23andMe has been hacked at least once now already.
posted by hippybear at 2:40 PM on March 19 [3 favorites]

I might be interested in testing for genetic disease markers, but I don't think there's any way to get genetic testing without having your data uploaded into a database that will link it with others.

Check with your doctor.

I had genetic sequencing done about 10 years ago to check a suite of common cancer markers. My doctor recommended it as part of another thing I was going through and it was covered by insurance. A genetic counselor went over the results with me afterward so I could understand and ask questions. That seems like a far better way to do it.
posted by Is It Over Yet? at 2:41 PM on March 19 [7 favorites]

Does anyone happen to know the percentage who discover a mystery dad from a DNA test?

I'm one. Luckily, I didn't find out until after my dad had passed away and he never had to learn that his wife cheated on him and had him raise another man's biological kid. But yeah. It'll fuck up your view of the world solidly.
Mom offered to tell me the dude's name before she passed but I declined. I know who my dad is, and I don't need to know a damn thing about the other dude.
posted by teleri025 at 2:58 PM on March 19 [23 favorites]

Got 23&Me for my parents after doing it myself. Mom found out her dad wasn’t her dad. She was relieved because she somehow inside always suspected. Weird. She’s 78.
posted by MichaelJoelHall at 3:11 PM on March 19 [6 favorites]

Monday, stony Monday: academics saying it was better to use cats as examples when teaching genetics instead of humans

Cats are handy in that they wear their genes on their sleeves. A glance will tell which variants are present for 7 common genes: (a d l o t s w). Everyone knows what a cat looks like and is aware, if they think for 30 seconds, that they come in different colours.
I know about (PhD!) the [population] genetics of cats. In the 80s, I was asked by the CFA Cat Fancy Association [of America] to run a pilot study of sire, dam and offspring triplets. Each of these animals had been assigned to a 'breed', and so genetically diagnosed, by owners. We found a 7% non-paternity rate; altho that % fell as the test was rolled out across the whole CFA database. I concluded that most cat-breeders knew damn-all about genetics and/or were colour-blind.
posted by BobTheScientist at 3:19 PM on March 19 [24 favorites]

I'm not surprised that the incidence seems far higher than previously estimated. I feel like this article is missing the 'so what?' and 'now what?'.

IMO the obvious answer is to empower potential victims and their supporters with more and better and earlier education on consent, bodily autonomy, and sex / health, stronger mandatory reporting laws, and more resources made available to minors facing sexual abuse and unwanted pregnancies.

But I'm guessing certain parties will take this info and argue for the opposite.
posted by sid at 3:20 PM on March 19 [6 favorites]

I find this obsession with biological relationships...very odd. There may be a sad story that is worth unpacking there sometimes (i.e., the many cases in prior days of a teenage girl's child being passed off as a "younger sister" to avoid ruining the teenager's life). But if you've raised a child as your own all this time, what does it matter whether you're biologically related to them? Your mom had an affair. Big deal. Who taught you to tie your shoelaces and took you to practices? (Or...your wife had an affair, many years ago. Do you suddenly stop loving your kid? Or your wife? And that's assuming your wife conceived the child through consensual sex. I'm sure many married women who are raped never tell the story.)

Incest is a whole different matter, of course. Good God.
posted by praemunire at 3:21 PM on March 19 [4 favorites]

Just a quick reminder that the group of "women who raised children who were fathered by men other than their husbands" is far larger than "women who had affairs". It also includes those who used IVF or adoption services and never told the children--not telling the child was an encouraged thing to do until relatively recently. And there are also contingents of wartime orphans who were taken in by other families and never really told the full story.

Now back to the article. I presume the researchers accounted for those cases where multiple cases of intermarriage within a family can skew the DNA markers such that known consanguinity appears closer than it actually is. It's not going to move 1 in 7000 terribly far but it's a well known phenom in certain populations.
posted by beaning at 3:25 PM on March 19 [10 favorites]

I get that in previous decades, people thought incest was rare, but in this day and age, is anyone surprised that there's a pretty high rate of incest? I mean, we know something like 1 in 3 women and 1 in 5 men will be sexually assaulted in their lifetime (I think that's the statistic usually given). Not all of these will be incest, but incest is definitely not some super rare, one in a million type of thing.

(And I say all this as someone who was molested by my father throughout my child. Fortunately, the severe eating disorder I developed as a teenager meant I lost my period for a lot of my teenage years, so at least no pregnancy for me.)

I do think it's kind of weird that this thread has mostly turned into a broader discussion of father's who turn out not to be the biological father. But I can't access most of the article, so maybe it came up in there.

I did know someone who was raped by her half brother (although potentially step brother). She got pregnant and gave the baby up for adoption, though eventually her biological son and his parents got in touch with her and she had a relationship with him. Unfortunately, he inherited some pretty severe mental health issues, and overdosed pretty young. It was an incredibly tragic situation.
posted by litera scripta manet at 3:48 PM on March 19 [3 favorites]

For the rate of NPE, you may pick from a wide range of estimates: 0.03% to 30%, [2005 paper] (four orders of magnitude) depending on what point you wish to make. These data, all supposedly about the same thing, are difficult to reconcile and/or incorporate into a meta-analysis. They come from a wide range of sources, some anecdotal, some formal science, some with very large sample sizes and some with small. The largest estimates of the rate of non-paternity tend to come from legal cases where paternity is actually in dispute, the smaller numbers come from solid respectable bourgeois families and the mid-range estimates come from the dispossessed. I should add that some of these studies pre-date DNA testing by decades and several of them pre-date Crick & Watson's 1953 elucidation of the structure of DNA - those being based on simple Mendelian inheritance like A.B.O. blood groups and the ability to taste PTC.
posted by BobTheScientist at 3:59 PM on March 19 [5 favorites]

> I remember, years ago, reading what I think was some sort of anthropology book, which stated that the one thing common across all cultures was having an incest taboo. So, maybe only in the abstract sense?

i mean i can think of a lot of people named ptolemy and a lot of people named cleopatra who had like three great-grandparents total what with all the sibling marriage all over their family not-a-tree, but maybe that sort of thing can be conceptualized not as a culture abandoning the incest taboo but instead as the culture actually upholding that universal taboo, just with a special carve-out giving members of the ruling class (and only members of the ruling class) lifelong hall passes
posted by bombastic lowercase pronouncements at 4:17 PM on March 19 [1 favorite]

From the internets…

From 1516 to 1700, it has been estimated that over 80% of marriages within the Spanish branch of the Habsburg dynasty were consanguineous.
posted by njohnson23 at 4:21 PM on March 19 [2 favorites]

Taboos are there and prevent the majority of the population from doing the thing. But even the minority of a population can be a LOT of people. It's not difficult to see that even 1/10 of 1% of the US population is still over 300,000 people. And I think anyone would think that is a pretty interesting level of occurrence of anything in any population.
posted by hippybear at 4:23 PM on March 19 [2 favorites]

This story really is heartbreaking. Given the discussion and paywall I fear many people may not have read it. Here's a paywall bypass link. This story is very much not about "surprise your father is the milkman" stories (aka NPEs or paternity fraud).

As it says, these are stories where "a child’s existence was likely evidence of sexual abuse". I can't imagine the difficulty of learning that news about your mother. Steve's story in the article is relatively gentle in that he doesn't know his birth mother. But I imagine in many of these cases children know their birth mothers and now have to decide whether to have a very difficult conversation about what they've learned.

I also note "Neither AncestryDNA nor 23andMe informs customers about incest directly". That's an interesting choice. When I had my own family tree surprise ten years ago I was shocked at how casually 23andMe treated the information. "Oh, this person you've never heard of is either your half brother or uncle". Right there on a web page, next to all the irrelevant fourth cousins with 2% DNA in common. My own story for that information is a happy one, I am glad to now know my brother. But that kind of news has to be devastating for some people and I'm surprised how casually the genetic testing companies treat relationships. Interesting they omit this particularly awful one.
posted by Nelson at 4:51 PM on March 19 [6 favorites]

From 1516 to 1700, it has been estimated that over 80% of marriages within the Spanish branch of the Habsburg dynasty were consanguineous.

Those were not immediate family members, though. The taboo against cousin (or niece/nephew) marriage in the West is a relatively recent development. Charles V, for instance, was married to his first cousin, Isabella of Portugal. (This required a papal dispensation, but largely as a matter of form/revenue for the Papacy.) His son, Philip II, was married to Mary (Tudor) of England, who was his first cousin once removed (she was also Charles's cousin, to whom, ahem, Charles had also once been engaged). Note that these are also mostly people who were not raised together and indeed may never have seen each other, even at the time of marriage (proxy marriages were common among royalty).

(The banned degree of consanguinuity actually changed roughly around this time, but I can't look up the technical details atm.)

instead as the culture actually upholding that universal taboo, just with a special carve-out giving members of the ruling class (and only members of the ruling class) lifelong hall passes

The Ptolemies didn't intermarry to indulge a preference, they did so to maintain the bloodline of the ruling family. That is an inexplicable policy to us, of course, but it wasn't driven by romantic or sexual desires per se (though obviously we lack evidence on whether any of the individuals involved were actually into it; I don't know if it's better or worse if they were, since their choice was limited).
posted by praemunire at 4:57 PM on March 19 [4 favorites]

In this 2024 article researchers at Taif Univerisity in Saudi Arabia state up to 50% of marriages in the Mideast are consanguineous, depending on country of origin, urbanization, financial status, and education. Approximately 9% is the cited rate for India. They believe the practice, though dropping, is seen in both Christian and Muslim communities in this region.
posted by beaning at 5:21 PM on March 19

Not sure why we're talking about consensual cousin marriage ITT. It's unremarkable in many parts of the world, with prevalence going up to 50% in certain jurisdictions. Totally different thing. My understanding is that prevalence in Europe was much higher prior to Church enforcing old Roman laws forbidding marriage for consanguinity within four degrees.
posted by sid at 5:45 PM on March 19 [2 favorites]

My doctor recommended it as part of another thing I was going through and it was covered by insurance.

Whatever reservations I have about allowing genetic testing companies access to my DNA record goes double for insurance companies.
posted by zamboni at 5:46 PM on March 19 [4 favorites]

Here's a paywall bypass link.

There’s already one at the end of the post, but a second one certainly doesn’t hurt.
posted by zamboni at 5:48 PM on March 19 [2 favorites]

Does anyone happen to know the percentage who discover a mystery dad from a DNA test?

This is anecdotal, but I once was part of a conversation with a number of biology professors who did genetic testing with undergrad students in their classes and their parents, in the early days before the ethical implications had been realized. They said they saw rates of about 10%. This led to the rapid end of these types of tests being used in classes.
posted by medusa at 5:54 PM on March 19 [7 favorites]

I find it disappointing that people put total faith in a negative result. As a result of chimerism it is possible for even *the mother* of a child to be ruled out by genetic testing.
posted by Orthodox Humanoid at 6:05 PM on March 19 [2 favorites]

Ten percent NPE in the general population is high in my experience, but then ~30,000-60,000 pregnancies per year are achieved via donor sperm, so maybe it's not? What with donor eggs, donor sperm, unacknowledged adoptions, and other sources of misattributed parentage. IVF likely will be the game changer in this area. There are already believed to be an increased number of half-sib marriages due to sperm donors.
posted by beaning at 6:07 PM on March 19

A very troubling story and one that has to make a lot of people wonder about their own parentage. I don't know whether ubiquitous DNA testing is a good thing or a disaster, to be honest. The benefits of being forewarned about possible health issues are clear, but the risk of finding out things you don't want to know is always there.
posted by dg at 6:10 PM on March 19 [1 favorite]

I might be interested in testing for genetic disease markers, but I don't think there's any way to get genetic testing without having your data uploaded into a database that will link it with others.

There are a number of tests which do not include relative matching or ancestry history. This YouTube video explores 10 tests and what they test.
posted by jvbthegolfer at 6:30 PM on March 19 [3 favorites]

IMO the obvious answer is to empower potential victims and their supporters with more and better and earlier education on consent, bodily autonomy, and sex / health, stronger mandatory reporting laws, and more resources made available to minors facing sexual abuse and unwanted pregnancies. But I'm guessing certain parties will take this info and argue for the opposite.

Yes, for me, the biggest thing is that minors should be allowed to access abortions without parental consent. Of course, now, accessing an abortion at all is a challenge in so many places. B/c if I had ended up pregnant due to my father's sexual abuse, that is what I would have needed.

Plus access to birth control and/or morning after pill without parental consent.

I mean, earlier education on consent etc is great, but at the end of the day, it's not like that would help most victims of incest. My mother definitely knew what was happening. And a lot of victims of incest are probably in a similar position - no adult that seems safe to turn to for help.

But for me, the big thing would be making all forms of birth control and morning after pill/abortion freely available to everyone, including minors, without parental consent. And education them from a young age about those options.

But I know that's like saying, "I just need to win the lottery." I hate this timeline.
posted by litera scripta manet at 6:32 PM on March 19 [25 favorites]

I remember, years ago, reading what I think was some sort of anthropology book, which stated that the one thing common across all cultures was having an incest taboo. So, maybe only in the abstract sense?

Most societies only bother to outlaw things that are (or that they believe are - malevolent sorcery, for example) prevalent enough to be problematic. Kind of makes sense that something that every society bothers to outlaw would be something that is fairly (in this case, depressingly) widespread.
posted by AdamCSnider at 6:42 PM on March 19 [7 favorites]

My doctor recommended it as part of another thing I was going through and it was covered by insurance.
Whatever reservations I have about allowing genetic testing companies access to my DNA record goes double for insurance companies.

I don't think the insurance company gets access to your DNA? They would know that they paid for a DNA sequencing but I assume the actual results stay with your doctor.
posted by april of time at 6:53 PM on March 19 [1 favorite]

I choked up while reading this. Fuck. Can you even imagine?
posted by lock robster at 9:01 PM on March 19 [5 favorites]

I don't think the insurance company gets access to your DNA?

Fuckin' Applebee's would get access to your DNA if they thought it would help them sell more Sizzlin' Skillets or whatever. Who's going to stop them? Congress? The DNA-collecting corporation?
posted by AlSweigart at 5:03 AM on March 20 [12 favorites]

Who's going to stop them? Congress? The DNA-collecting corporation?

I mean, HIPAA stops them? I’m pretty sure your DNA is protected health information. I’m not saying it’s impossible that there’s a conspiracy between insurance companies and DNA sequencing labs, but do you have any evidence that this is happening?
posted by april of time at 6:11 AM on March 20 [1 favorite]

one thing common across all cultures was having an incest taboo

Somewhere in one of Umberto Eco’s books he points out that people don’t forbid things that never happen. So if a society has a rule against something, you can be sure it happens regularly.
posted by Phanx at 6:12 AM on March 20 [9 favorites]

I believe HIPAA doesn't apply to things like AncestryDNA since it's not actually a health care company. HIPAA is pretty limited in scope, unfortunately.
posted by rmd1023 at 7:33 AM on March 20 [3 favorites]

I'm not saying that services like AncestryDNA and 23andMe are covered by HIPAA.

I was replying to a comment where someone's doctor recommended a genetic test, and that genetic test was covered by insurance. Someone implied that if the insurance company pays for it, that means they get to see your DNA. I'm saying that doesn't sound right - your doctor needs to follow HIPAA and even if they contract with third-party lab companies, they still need to make sure your data is protected.
posted by april of time at 7:49 AM on March 20 [4 favorites]

I mean, HIPAA stops them? I’m pretty sure your DNA is protected health information.

In the US, genetic information is covered by the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Acts (GINA I/II) which cover restrictions on the use of genetic testing in health insurance (I) and employment (II).

Someone implied that if the insurance company pays for it, that means they get to see your DNA. I'm saying that doesn't sound right - your doctor needs to follow HIPAA and even if they contract with third-party lab companies, they still need to make sure your data is protected.

GINA I states that insurers cannot use genetic testing in underwriting decisions.
posted by NoxAeternum at 8:09 AM on March 20 [7 favorites]

That's a pretty narrow way of stating the restriction. Are they allowed to use it for other purposes? A better restriction would be they aren't allowed to collect it.
posted by Mitheral at 9:13 AM on March 20

A better restriction would be they aren't allowed to collect it.

GINA I specifically prohibits insurers (with the exception of TRICARE for military personnel) from requiring genetic testing.
posted by NoxAeternum at 9:21 AM on March 20 [4 favorites]

I learned in some early psych classes that a lot of the early theories about "secret fantasies" that were thought to be common were the results of the early psychologists getting more reports of incest and abuse than they could believe were true. They couldn't accept the implications of how widespread abuse must be based on what they were being told so decided instead there must just be something about the human psyche that leads children to make these things up.
posted by Karmakaze at 1:57 PM on March 20 [4 favorites]

See also: The Freudian Cover-Up.
posted by Halloween Jack at 4:44 AM on March 21 [1 favorite]

i shouldn't have read this while at work and just trying to hide my tears from coworkers passing by
posted by numaner at 7:57 AM on March 27

« Older How Jesse Plemons Came to Star in, Well, Pretty... | baby toss now has a chance to crit Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments

MetaFilter

DNA Sequencing Services Reveal Unexpected Prevalence of Incest
March 19, 2024 12:19 PM Subscribe

Tags

Share

DNA Sequencing Services Reveal Unexpected Prevalence of Incest March 19, 2024 12:19 PM Subscribe

Tags

Share

DNA Sequencing Services Reveal Unexpected Prevalence of Incest
March 19, 2024 12:19 PM Subscribe