Research
My Areas of Specialization are bioethics, ethics and public policy, political philosophy
My Areas of Competence are feminist ethics, business ethics
________________________
I am interested in:
My Areas of Competence are feminist ethics, business ethics
________________________
I am interested in:
Developing a reasonable conception of "unjustified genetic discrimination" (gd) that is flexible enough to account for future forms of gd.
Identifying the limits of reprogenetic liberties.
Investigating the relationship between and optimal co-utilization of ideal & non-ideal theory in applied ethics.
Within the confines of a democratic, free and equal society, I am generally interested in extending the basic moral principle of equality as far as logically possible.
I work from within an interdisciplinary, public reason framework and regularly engage with the philosophical and sociological concepts of:
pluralism
equality of opportunity
medicalization
My doctoral dissertation was on genetic discrimination in life insurance. I use a luck egalitarian & expression-based conception of discrimination to demonstrate how the genetic non-discrimination law in Canada can be improved.
Between 2017-2020, my project was funded by the Government of Ontario and the David and Rachel Epstein Scholarship.
My main contributions to the field of ethics and public policy from this project are that:
I offer a pluralistic, compensation-based policy proposal to the issue of genetic discrimination in life insurance, by taking account of, and balancing the interests of all stakeholders including insurers, individuals, and public-at-large.
The general public reason framework is strengthened by insights from feminist ethics, resulting in more contextually informed conclusions.
I broaden the genetic discrimination literature by arguing that many other kinds of information—such as lifestyle and environmental—are also implicated in the debate, which puts into question the fairness of the way insurance operates in general.
Dissertation abstract
The Genetic Non-discrimination Act in Canada prohibits service providers such as life insurance companies from using genetic test results in their risk-assessment procedures. From a practical standpoint, however, this law does not change much for those seeking life insurance. The law does not change much for these individuals because it is reflective of what I call a ‘genetic test exceptionalism’ policy rather than what is known as the broader policy of ‘genetic exceptionalism’. What this means is that insurers are still free to request other kinds of genetic data from clients such as information about family history of genetic disease, and the results of non-genetic tests that can nonetheless reveal genetic information. These may similarly render genetically disadvantaged persons ineligible for insurance and/or increase their premiums, which are two outcomes that the law is attempting to reduce.
In this thesis, I critique both 'genetic exceptionalism' and 'genetic test exceptionalism' as ways to protect genetically disadvantaged persons in life insurance, and defend an alternative response to the problem of unjustified discrimination. Without equating all genetic discrimination to “unjustified discrimination”, I argue that every life insurance customer ought to be offered two options: (1) a substantive no-questions-asked guaranteed insurance; and (2) insurance based on full disclosure of information. When a person seeks insurance coverage above the 'no-questions-asked' amount but below a maximum limit, the premium cost ought to be shared between the insured--who pays for what is ‘controllable’--and the state--who pays for what is based on “bad luck” and (i) leads to disadvantage and/or (ii) expresses a negative message.
Next steps:
Minimally, my project can cause policy discussion towards a new, more inclusive direction.
Maximally, my project can be piloted.
Future research can utilize the ethical building blocks from my paper, including my conception of unjustified genetic discrimination, to analyze discrimination in other contexts (e.g., law enforcement, immigration) and develop their own normative tools to aid in addressing them)
My paper “Genetic discrimination, life insurance, and justice as fairness” uses some of the key philosophical ideas from my dissertation.
Abstract: In this paper, I use justice as fairness (JAF) to inquire whether any issues of liberal justice are raised by the practice of genetic discrimination in society, in particular from the standpoint of life insurance pricing in Canada. I present three ways in which JAF may apply. First and foremost, Rawls’ negative thesis can be interpreted to say that one’s genetic characteristics are morally arbitrary and therefore persons do not deserve to be advantaged or disadvantaged by the basic structure of society based on these characteristics. Second, as James W. Nickel observes, Rawls’ principle of equal basic liberties can be interpreted to include a right to privacy which is necessary, among other things, in order to protect other basic rights and liberties. Third, as Martin O’Neill maintains, life insurance is a gateway social good that allows individuals to access primary goods and to live a full human life. Therefore, securing this important good on non-discriminatory grounds is of fundamental importance for a society committed to social justice.
My research in industry: Business Ethics
My presentations
Genetic Exceptionalism
“Genetic (test) exceptionalism in life insurance”- presented at the
Law and Society Conference, 2021
Great Lakes Philosophy Conference, 2021
Accepted for presentation at the UNESCO Chair in Bioethics World Conference on Bioethics, Medical Ethics & Health Law but was cancelled due to COVID-19 pandemic
Ethics in life insurance
What's so special about genetic information, anyway? - presented at
Caltech History and Philosophy of Science Seminar Series, 2023
“How should genetically disadvantaged persons be treated by life insurers?” - presented at the
Canadian Bioethics Society Conference, 2021
“The Canadian Genetic Non-discrimination Act, life insurance, and justice as fairness”, presented at the
International Social Philosophy Conference, 2018
Canadian Society for the Study of Practical Ethics Conference, 2017
Research ethics
"Challenges for informed consent", panelist at the
The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks movie screening and discussion, Caltech, 2023 (invited talk)
Clinical ethics
“World-travelling as a means to applying epistemic humility in chronic pain management”, presented at the
Western Michigan University Medical Humanities Conference, 2018
Animal ethics
“Animal Ethics and Sentience”, lecture presented to:
students of PHIL 2501- Philosophy of Mind, Carleton University, Ottawa (invited talk), 2018
students of PHIL1550- Intro to Ethics and Social Issues, Carleton University, Ottawa (invited talk), 2018
Reprogenetic ethics
“Designer babies and genetic enhancement” at the Canada Science and Technology Museum, Ottawa, Canada (invited talk), 2020
“Bioethics and genetic technologies”, guest lecture presented to students of BIOL 4301- Current Topics in Biotechnology, Carleton University, Ottawa (invited talk), 2017
“Ethical issues facing the Deaf community”, presented to Carleton University’s Disability Research Group, Ottawa (invited talk), 2017
Panel discussion on human genome editing, 2020
My arguments and research have appeared in:
My argument on genetic privacy appears on Chapter 13 of the Research Handbook on Information Policy.
My master's research on the ethics of safe injection facilities is listed as a source by the organization responsible for providing national leadership to address substance use in Canada.
