The need to protect employees with genetic predisposition to mental illness? The UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities and the case for regulation

Aisling de Paor, Charles O'mahony

Research output: Contribution to a Journal (Peer & Non Peer)Articlepeer-review

10 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Ground-breaking genetic discoveries and technological advances have opened up a new era in genetic exploration, and technological advances have enabled geneticists to successfully uncover the genetic basis of a wide range of diseases. Although currently of limited predictive value, genetic testing promises to potentially revolutionise health care and medical treatment. Among other things, genetic testing technology may offer the prospect of being able to detect the onset of future disabilities, including mental illness. In light of advances in genetic science and technology, questions arise as to whether an appropriate framework exists to protect the interests of individuals and also to acknowledge competing commercial considerations for the use of genetic testing, particularly in the employment context. Against the backdrop of rapidly advancing genetic technologies, this article considers whether it is necessary to regulate genetic testing of employees for mental illness. This article examines the regulation of genetic testing in this area from the perspective of the social model of disability and the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. It makes recommendations for addressing the competing interests and argues for the need to regulate genetic testing for mental illnesses in employment, with individual rights at the forefront.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)525-555
Number of pages31
JournalIndustrial Law Journal
Volume45
Issue number4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Dec 2016
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'The need to protect employees with genetic predisposition to mental illness? The UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities and the case for regulation'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this