| You are inadvertently trivializing the consequences. If someone has to pay a bit more for insurance or whatever, that may not sound like a big deal and also morally justifiable if you assume someone is always willing and able to evaluate risk accurately. However, some diagnoses are treated as "unknown unknowns" rather than quantifiable risks. In that case, it's likely that there will simply be nobody to accept them at all. The discrepancy between this treatment of a risk as effectively infinite, because nobody will take it on, versus the fact that it is really finite, constitutes economic destruction that would be caused by the disclosure of the diagnosis. Right now there are restricted circumstances where things have to be disclosed. But it's relatively tolerable because it's limited. For instance, you might not be able to get life insurance, but at least you can hold a job, have health insurance, live where you like, etc. Taking all that away from millions of people seems not a lot kinder than just liquidating them. |