Certainly.
There is one thing that surprises me. It is difficult to say that the objective is necessarily to obtain health information when clause 3 itself seeks to protect the person from having to take a test. Clause 3 seeks only to authorize a person to refuse to take a genetic test.
The idea of protecting patients so they can voluntarily take a test and not be required to disclose the results is reflected in clause 4. Clause 3, on the other hand, does not pertain to this health objective. It pertains to the person's autonomy, that is, their free choice to take a test or not and to obtain information or not on their propensity to develop an illness. Clause 4 also seeks to protect the patient from the potential consequences. Retaining this ability, that is, the autonomy to choose, traditionally falls under private law.
People from certain communities know that they have a greater propensity to develop an illness. Some of these people do not want to know if they have the illness because it would change their life, while others want to know in order to plan.
To the extent that the provision seeks to protect autonomy, that is no longer the objective of protecting health.