The problems of liminal states, line drawing, and false dichotomies

This commentary focuses on the tenuous line between health and disease and the conflicting characterizations of genetic predisposition that sometimes place it on one side of that line, and sometimes on the other. For example, GINA uses the line between health and disease to distinguish between, respectively, the healthy (including, those with genetic predispositions), who are shielded from discrimination, and those with 'manifested illness,' who are not. At the same time, some have argued that the Americans with Disabilities Act protects individuals with genetic predispositions, relying on a label akin to disability, as opposed to health, to characterize this group. Similarly, courts have described genetic predisposition as a disease of sorts to justify insurance payment for medical intervention. Attempts to fit genetic predisposition neatly into the binary world of health or illness can be problematic because this dichotomy doesn't capture the complex continuum between those states. Some individuals reside in yet another 'liminal' state when they develop mild symptoms or biomarkers, placing them somewhere between genetic predisposition and actual disease manifestation. As a result, they may be unprotected under existing frameworks. Liminal states are therefore problematic not only with respect to insurance reimbursement, but in other areas as well.