The Instigator
Hurtado
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Dan4reason
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Should Gene Therapy be Covered by Medical Insurance

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/10/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 424 times Debate No: 52088
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

Hurtado

Con

My stance on this subject is that Gene Therapy should not be covered under medical insurance. I think this because there are certain liabilities that come with replacing malfunctioned DNA with good DNA. The DNA can be placed in the wrong location, activate the wrong proteins or systems, or cause cancer by cell rejection. The benefits are numerous for gene therapy but insurance companies have to have a safety line. If a person dies by receiving medical care should the company have to give money for a mistake? I think it"s rather the opposite. If an affected person is in need of gene therapy than a fundraiser or out of pocket should be used because this extinguishes any liability by insurance or other money lending company.
Dan4reason

Pro

I am of the opinion that it should be covered by Medical Insurance or at least the very best (gold standard) medical insurance depending on its cost. As its cost goes down, it can be covered by more mainstream insurance plans. It may be risky but so are a lot of other medical procedures. For example heart transplants carry some risk of death and if the transplant fails, the family is not given compensation if there is no evidence of malpractice. Before gene therapy operations the patient should fill a consent form, be made aware of the risks, and understand that the hospital is not liable if the patient dies when there is no malpractice.

The cost of this therapy is in the millions so out of pocket would not be practical for the non-super rich (1). A heart transplant in comparison is about 1.2 million. Putting the procedure on insurance will make it available to a wider group of people. I doubt that fund raisers will work because each transplant is in the millions. We will be able to do more of these transplant if they are paid for through insurance.

1: http://www.nytimes.com...
2: http://organdonor.gov...
Debate Round No. 1
Hurtado

Con

Hurtado forfeited this round.
Dan4reason

Pro

Extend my arguments to this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Hurtado

Con

Hurtado forfeited this round.
Dan4reason

Pro

Extend my arguments to this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Hurtado

Con

Hurtado forfeited this round.
Dan4reason

Pro

Extend my arguments to this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Hurtado

Con

Hurtado forfeited this round.
Dan4reason

Pro

Dan4reason forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
This really isn't a very fair debate setup. I mean, there's no one who really doubts that gene therapies are getting more realistic and that their benefit is a very significant one, but there's also little argument over the fact that it's currently not at all ready. There are too many unknowns and major safety risks. You might as well post the topic "Should any drug that hasn't passed a single clinical trial in any country be covered by health insurance?" because that's effectively what you're asking someone to support here.
No votes have been placed for this debate.