The Gov't Has Your Baby's DNA

I did not know this. It makes me uncomfortable. It's really for the parents to choose if they want their child screened or not. The government keeps the blood of our newborns for research! If I were a parent I would be very, very pissed off that they took my babies blood without permission.

Will anything absolutely horrible happen if states have DNA from babies to learn more about diseases and further health research? Not really. But sure, they should ask first. Who's gonna say: No! I don't want to know if my child carries a cystic fibrosis gene! Parents should know that stuff.

It can affect the child's future ability to get a job or medical coverage if it falls into the wrong hands. I'm not comfortable at all that they just collect the blood routinely, without the parent's knowledge.

I don't think the governments as smart as you guys think. I used a wrong SSN for years working for the government on a military base.

There needs to be informed consent, as with most any non-emergency lifesaving procedure. That's fucking shocking to me.

I agree with the Adelaide (and not only because she has the same name as my 15 month old). I'd be stoked if some doctor told me my daughter had a disease I hadn't thought to get her tested for, especially if early detection meant treatment would be more effective.

And research? How is that bad? I mean, I sort of get that it's not done with informed consent, so there is a fine line to tread with privacy, and maybe the big bad gov't didn't go about this the right way....

But at the same time, if you're able to catch and treat something that early, it could make a huge, positive difference.

Who are we kidding, anyway... like we actually have that much privacy. I have nothing to hide, so it really doesn't bother me, either.

What if it's caught, can't be treated, and is used to discriminate against you, as Mirka said?

GATTACA!

Really, though, it's one thing for researchers to have your DNA, but wholly different for the government to have it.

In my thinking, that sort of discrimination could happen, but would be very difficult to get away with and would probably not be legal on the ins. co's part.

I mean, people get dropped from ins. all the time, but that's not the issue here so much as privacy. As long as that info stays in the right hands (privacy) then the main issue is a lack of informed consent.

And it's not like the ins co could say it was a lack of disclosure on a pre-existing condition. I mean, I added my daughter to my insurance as of the day she was born. Unless there's a lapse in coverage some time in the future (which again, could happen to anyone, and is not unique to this dilemma) then she should be could and the law is on her side.

I guess I'm just trying to be see the positive. There are much worse invasions of privacy to worry about than something like this, IMO.

There is a lapse in coverage sometimes in the future, like when she graduates college and the possibility that she's 60% susceptible to Parkinson's becomes a pre-existing condition.

Again, this info could get into the wrong hands from anywhere... If she gets paranoid in college and gets tested for everything, then oops, after graduation goes without a job and healthcare for a week, there's a lapse in coverage.

Like I said, I don't agree with the whole thing, honestly, but if that's what's been happening, then I'm just trying to see the positive possibilities.

It's not like we can just, you know... vote or petition or protest and get the gov't to stop doing this or anything. That never works.

That's because america's full of apathy and no one actually cares enough to make change.

I'd respond to your broad generalization, but I'm too apathetic...

But honestly, if they already have my little girl's DNa and such, there's not much use going "Ooh, I wish I wish I wish that hadn't happened."

Hence me trying to think about positive outcomes from it whilst doing my best to mitigate the negatives that are within my control. It is what it is, so you do what you can do.

As a parent this irks me to no end. Of course Im going to get my children tested for diseases but I am the one who makes that decision not the govt.

"Art Caplan, a bioethicist at the University of Pennsylvania, says he understands why states don't first ask permission to screen babies for genetic diseases. "It's paternalistic, but the state has an overriding interest in protecting these babies," he says."

This disturbs me. Really , the state has on 'overriding interest'. WTF is this, 1984?
Nothing good can come of this and its just another invasion of our privacy.

The only good thing about this is that it's probably anonymous. Or, in theory, should be.

What can you or we do? Demand they stop. Demand that they delete the files and demand to know what they have used this information for. Who has this information, why they have it, and what have they done with it.

I mean, i'm all for science. The diploma i'm going to have will tell people that i am a scientist, but that doesn't mean i think the government should know what my DNA looks like.

Also, the article does say you can contact some agency and request the records be destroyed. And since I haven't gotten any calls in these past 15 months about Adelaide, sounds to me like things are alright with her anyway.

So again, I agree, not a great thing, should have been my decision, should not have happened at all... but I see no reason to flip out too much.

If I really think it's necessary to make that call, or write that letter, I will. There is a real solution available to parents. If someone is so irked by this, why not take the initiative and make the petitions and start the website and facebook page yourself? Me, I'm not too worried about it.

If the theft of a child's DNA is not cause to flip out, what is?

I have two children of my own and with my first child I had to make a scene to prevent them from taking her blood for no reason. No one in the room could tell me why they were taking it other than it was 'standard procedure' and when I asked where the blood would end up, nobody knew.

My second child was born in a birth center and it wasn't an issue.

If a parent elects to have their child screened thats one thing, and I can respect that. But they have a name for people who take blood from the unwilling and uninformed. Jerks.... And Vampires.

That sounds reasonable, but let's review the first two paragraphs to see if this sounds like it'll only be a positive and not a negative.

When Annie Brown's daughter, Isabel, was a month old, her pediatrician asked Brown and her husband to sit down because he had some bad news to tell them: Isabel carried a gene that put her at risk for cystic fibrosis.

While grateful to have the information -- Isabel received further testing and she doesn't have the disease -- the Mankato, Minnesota, couple wondered how the doctor knew about Isabel's genes in the first place. After all, they'd never consented to genetic testing.

It's written cleverly to cover it up, but what does the first sentence/paragraph tell us?

It says "Parents were shocked to find their daughter could have this disease". Considering that they never consented to the testing, they also never consented/prepared for the emotional trauma that followed. Can you imagine what a strain it must have put on these parent's first precious days with their child, thinking it could already be fatally ill? This is what you call an 'unintended consequence'. No amount of money can replace the time spent under a cloud of fear that their child was ill.

And because government mandated these tests, you can't say no. You can not ask for your child not to be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered if you birth it in their hospitals. Think about what that says about your, and your child's, relationship in reference to them. When you are in their building, they own your DNA.

Anyone who trusts their personal and unique genetic sequence to the only people who can kill you and get away with it, by all means, be my guest. I will never be joining you.

------

Let's think outside the government box for a second...imagine if you volunteered for some sort of procedure at a private medical facility under the condition that they would not save any of your medical samples and you would remain completely anonymous. If they violated this contract, they'd be liable to you for damages. If it's government, as it is now, you can bet these people won't see a dime of restitution.

Yet again, the market is more peaceful, prosperous, and efficient than any similar governmental structure because the coercive element (the 'you can't say no') is removed.

I actually thought this movie was egalitarian propaganda, but I enjoyed it nonetheless. The hero of the film is someone who's trying to cheat a more qualified candidate out of a job. If the main character could do his job, and he really, really cares that much, then by all means cheat. For the grievance is between you and the company, not you and society. Granted, there are moral implications afoot...

I actually considered doing a Gattaca thread after I watched the film for the first time a few months ago. But I realized it would have been a libertarian moral theory convo that people probably wouldn't have wanted to have.

If anyone does though, signify in some way.

The fact that you felt the need to say that says something about the nature of government intervention in any field.

I don't think anyone who's against the idea of the government keeping a database of your DNA would take such a position because they loathe scientific and technological progress. However, from the position of someone who supports the government using its coercive power to do something that the market would not naturally do, you are opposed to scientific progress, because government will make this program where the market will not, and it will be a benefit to society (at least it must be perceived to be) otherwise people would not bother putting in the effort to support it.

Does anyone see where I'm going with how the support for coercion naturally perpetuates collectivist thinking?

For if Eddy is against it and you think it's a good idea, then he must be wrong! But if both Eddy and person who disagrees (Person B from here forward) chose not to pressure scientists to take one action over another, neither has to bother formulating negative thoughts about the leadership competence of the other!

I agree with Mirka on the mandatory testing. Many of you may not realize how badly having a condition listed on your insurance can affect you. I pay a ridiculous amount of money to keep myself insured. I am on a group plan and therefore cannot be denied coverage. I recently applied for individual coverage that would save me about $150 a month. This plan was with the same company who currently insures me. I was denied because I have ADHD and have been treated for depression. My sister was denied because of acne. A friend of mine was denied because of a broken arm. If you have never had to try to obtain individual health coverage know this: if you actually need it, you will be denied. Avoid having tests paid for by your insurance if you can. My mother told us that if for any reason our lady doctors thought we may have and STD and needed to be tested to refuse the test and have it done where it would not be filed with the insurance. Luckily we never faced this issue, but I am also lucky that my mother is smart.

Now I do see the benefits of testing. If it must be mandatory parents should be notified and given the choice to pay for it rather than having it filed on their insurance.

As far as storing the DNA with names attached? That is absolutely wrong. It doesn't matter how much they say it is sealed up tight. It is in the hands of the government, and can be used as they see fit. What is to stop law enforcement from using the stored DNA to match with a sample from a crime? Sure, they might not be able to use it as proof in court, but it would be enough for them to stop all other leads and focus on finding a way to obtain your DNA legally. I watch enough law and order to know this. I know its just a show, but the practices shown are not made up. I'm honestly surprised giggan didn't make this point all ready.

The samples should either be destroyed or stored anonymously. Parents should have the right to demand the destruction of the samples if they are so inclined.

I'll add to this. Because I'm a firefighter, its almost impossible for me to get health or life insurance on my own do to my job being considered 'high risk'.If I do the premiums are through the roof. The only thing that saves us is being in a group plan when you get hired.
A DNA database is just flat out scary............

You've made an incredibly significant point which anyone concerned about the current health care debate, especially involving pre-existing conditions, should be aware of.

Insurance companies are currently screening people for pre-existing conditions. From a business perspective, this makes sense, but the list of pre-existing conditions that insurance companies can cover is constantly growing. This is occurring as a cost-saving mechanism. Insurance companies are basically being forced to pinch pennies, and because of this, people who it was never economical to insure in the first place are the first to be cut.

Consider for a moment, if insurance companies already had your medical profile by having your DNA. I imagine there's a lot that could be learned about the individual from the DNA, and technology is constantly pushing the envelope in that field of the market.

My point is that this DNA information is valuable. Think pre-existing conditions are a big deal now? What about genetic screening. Of course, these things would naturally develop in the marketplace, but when you give this godly amount of information power to one organization, can anything good be expected to come from that?

Nobody's currently signing contracts (that I'm aware of) to send your DNA to insurance companies to scan before they see if you qualify. The market doesn't currently support such a system. However, if government is already compiling this data, the insurance companies now stand poised to profit heavily from that information. You can bet your rectum that if that information exists, the people who want to use it for not nice will get it. Thus, I don't support the market being forced to do something it wouldn't have ordinarily done...unintended consequences again. They don't happen when you don't mess with stuff. Spontaneous order, comparative advantage, yada yada...

Also: government 'regulations' which began rearing their greasy gullivers in the 70s have unnaturally incentivized group-purchase of insurance over individual purchase which has made it almost impossible to be covered unless through an employer.

This is really excellent advice, thank you for mentioning it.

I pay out of pocket for my anti-depressants and see a private psychiatrist for the prescription for that very reason.

yes, my brother saw a "pain specialist" for this knee thing he had and it didn't go on his insurance. also:

gov't took my baby away!

My psychiatrist doesn't accept insurance, so I pay for him, but I can't afford to pay for my meds out of pocket. As it stands I pay $300 a month for health insurance, and another $90 for prescriptions. Without insurance just one of them would cost me nearly $200.

Because I've always had precocious health I was really concerned about healthcare after graduating college. I live with my mother for 2 years because it was the only way I could afford to pay for it. I'm really lucky that this was such an important thing to me. My gall bladder surgery cost about $25,000, but I had to pay only a small amount. My appendectomy came after a change in my plan, and what would have cost around $30,000 cost me about $6,000. I'm still broke now, but I could be in severe debt. Of course if I hadn't had insurance I could have just gone to the Med School and it probably would have been cheaper.

What're you talking about, Giggan? Nobody has my baby's DNA. I don't even have a baby.

another take on this joke would be:

...how did the government get a hold of my sock?

Well, the way the government's always jerkin' us around...

that said, believe it, or dont.

None of my kids were born in the hospital so any tests they did have were only done after my informed consent, nothing was pushed on me as "madatory" or "routine".

That said, is it te PKU test (the heel prick) that they are getting the DNA samples from or is it a seperate blood drawing or swab? The article wasn't clear to me.

I find all of this disturbing. Of course, I find it disturbing to give my thumb print to cash a check. So maybe I'm just paranoid.

As wise philosopher K.Cobain once said: Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't after you.