Article Source: msnbc.com
from:msnbc.comA critical safety net for babies - that heelprick of blood taken from every newborn in the U.S. - is facing an ethics attack.
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
Colon cancer test may not require laxatives: studyâÂÂBeauty machineâ makes everyone prettyU.S. launches ambitious Alzheimer's plan with research pushScientists build world's first artificial stomachFirst Alzheimer's prevention study launchedGet the scoop on smoothiesThe dirtiest clean places â and how to clean them upWhy isn't HIV testing routine yet?Flesh-eating germ rare, especially for the healthyOklahoma City mayor puts city on a diet
Leave a Comment:
Michigan just moved 4 million leftover blood spots into a new "BioTrust for Health,"
Although I have nothing against them using the blood for research, I don't understand what the point is in saving this blood for years, it's not like there's not going to be more babies born.
It's probably so that they can compare it to more blood years later to study long-term effects of environment/sickness/etc.
Reminds me of the X-files episode "Paperclip" where Mulder finds the library of tissue samples derived from childhood vaccinations. Life imitating art or a New World Order?
the point here is the consent issue. i have had problems with medical "professionals" who feel that they dont need consent for any procedures on pediatric patients. this occurred with my grandson. they were doing all sorts of invasive procedures without even talking to his mother nor my wife or i. one of us was in the icu at all times and none of these procedures was an emergency. it was a university hospital and that means it was teaching future doctors that this was alright. i had to get JCASHO involved to stop this situation. doctors and researchers feel they are above any rules as long as it is for the "good of society". this is why i also oppose cloning embryos for stem cell research. it will only lead to building the "perfect child"
All I can say is if they are not trying to hide anything, than why not simply ask the parents if they could sign a form? Even with urine testing a form needs to be signed. Why not blood? And why not have everyone get blood samples rather than just babies? Unless if scientists test on our drawn blood as well? Is it so hard to just print a form? Than we would not have people fighting over this, simple as that.
sorry. this isn't a choice concerning the welfare of your child. this concerns fears of testing material which is no longer attached to your child or capable of harming him/her. Do you burn your childs hair/nail clippings and any material used to wipe blood off(or bandaids) a cut or scrape? If you are really scared of your child's dna "falling into the wrong hands", then why not be thorough?
I DO think they should NOT charge patients/parents for the tests, if they are going to use the blood/cells/dna for testing afterwards without having to pay a donors fee for it.
All they have to do is just put a clause into the form that parents sign on admission to hospitals/clinics and before newborn delivery.
I wish we would have saved fluid/dna from my son's umbilical cord, in case scientists/doctors can find a cure or regenerate cells for my son in case (God forbid) he comes down with a disease or has an accident.
The woman who complained that her kids DNA could fall into the wrong hands....exactly who would that be?
More Big Brudda trying to take over our lives, and control what we do and think. Criminal charges of theft, fraud and invasion of privacy all come to mind. And that's without looking anything up. And the medical profession is a willing accomplice. They tell you all of these test and that getting a SSN are all "mandatory". It's all voluntary! All because of people who are "just doing their jobs", are too brain dead to ask and think. Think I'm kidding? I can't even begin to count the people I've been around who I have heard say, "They don't pay me to think." 'nuff said.
@TAW57-
How many government agencies can you think of? Just read the post directly beneath yours.
Oh, c'mon people!
It's not like anyone can use the blood to match tissue types and locate organ donors for terminally ill politicians like Jack Murtha that could have been saved by a pancreas transplant........or can they.....hmmmmm.
Not like they could show up at your door in the middle of the night and arrest you for some alleged terrorist activity and spirit you away, never to be heard from again.....or could they.....hmmmmm.
Why did Obama want to have his own national police force, equally equipped as the military......not like he might need it to round "voluntary" donors.
The preceding alarmist message was brought to you by Coast to Coast AM. Remember, just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you.
To some it may be more of a matter of principal rather than paranoia. But if they are storing these samples for years (I think someone posted something a long the lines of "it's not like any new babies are going to be born")??? While nothing from the samples can supposedly be connected to a certain person now, what happens as technology advances?
I have to laugh at myself a little on that because it does sound paranoid, but you never know.
Oh, for god's sake! This "Bioethics" rubbish is so far out of hand it's insane! These jerkoffs sit in their offices and pull down big salaries for conducting polls.
How on earth does anyone think that science can find out, for instance, what the health was of children born 40 years ago?
In France, it's the law, that unless you specifically say no, anything can be used. That includes organs. Guess what? In France, there isn't such a shortage of organs. Lots of donors.
Of course, anybody that complains still gladly accepts any new treatment that comes out of it if they need it.
Last time I checked, I lived in the US, not France. Is your last name Conehead? You may want to give up all rights to your and your children's privacy, but I don't. Perhaps in the near future the government and medical profession will decide that our kids can do fine with one kidney, and remove the second one after birth for "the good of the many", in case someone needs one. Not too much of a stretch considering what we have to currently submit to according to the government.
what do you have to hide?? so what its just blood, the baby will produce more. a good way to test for other problem in the child in the long run, yeah compared them, big deal its just blood.
Oh my they going to clone my baby! oh my! BIG DEAL!!!
they going to use it to kill off other people make robotic humanoids out of them
A vast ARMY! Get real, WHO CARES! the parents shouldnt be whining.
Privacy??? what privacy?? your child has something to hide?? all this crap about privacy, if you have something to hide then DONT GO TO a PUBLIC HOSPITAL!! The key word is PUBLIC!!!
its like your child is special, bah! nothing special about a baby, oh sure its YOUR baby! BIG DEAL! 10,000 babies are born everyday!
You people who scream "Privacy" are morons. This is for the Better good for everyone. it could benefits everyone
Hhhhmmmm....this article makes one think about the possibility of cloning whole humans from the DNA in those blood spots. What if the government wanted to genetically engineer 'the perfect soldier'? They have all the ingredients they need....just not the technology yet. Or do they? Or maybe the perfect human for someone's idea of a utopian society? Maybe a new race of slaves? This is one of those "things that make you go hhmmm"
Murtha died of sepsis from a colon nick during surgery that was not caught. No transplant could have saved him, nor could any have been done until the sepsis had passed.
TWA57 - it is already in the wrong hands. The governments'.
I am sure they have the blood spots somewhere from each of my children. I am not considered. I would have preferred that the mandatory test (not covered by insurance) had been performed for free rather then my paying the $20. Medicare (my tax money) pays for the test but BCBS (I pay premiums for this) does not. Maybe Medicare patients should donate their blood spots since they did not have to pay the test. A little productivness would be nice.
Oh God! The scientists want to use an anonymous pinprick of blood to do important scientific research!!! it's obviously some kind of evil plot!! LET'S SUE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
People like that are too stupid to be allowed to breed. Of course, the irony is, these are the same people who want an end to serious diseases and defects, but by magic, not by utilizing current resources. No one is harmed, no names or identifying information is given out, but since they don't understand, they want to stop it. Geesh.
The fact is that the parents should have the right to decide. I am an organ donor, but that decision is mine, and I do not force it on anyone else. Just as I am an atheist, I do not force that on anyone. American was supposed to be based on freedom, not cover up antics. Let me decide what is best regarding MY baby.
...apples and oranges....
Reaves, decision to donate an organ can possibly affect you and your family. It
can be hard for them to know that somebody out there is carrying your living
organ while the rest of you are... you know.... But a drop of blood, once it
leaves the baby's body cannot affect him or her, there is no harm at all.
As Kim said, it's an anonymous blood spot on paper. DNA banking? Do they
think that it would deplete their kids' DNA stores?
kim-569233: It's not anonymous. This all started after a bill was passed in 2008.
The bill requires, that all babies born after the bill was signed, that there blood would be taken and stored in a government database for life. The bill also says, that the government can do what ever they want with the DNA.
Before you say people shouldn't procreate, maybe you should research the bill, because you obviously haven't.
Must be a slow news day. This was discussed all over the internet last year.
Thank you Kim. I think saving a life is a choice, but they are not giving parents a choice regarding their children. Do I fully trust the Government..... Uh, hell No!!
i too am personally against research without the concent. if i am asked, i like most would not be as peeved, as not asked. Kinda like your kid taking loose change off your dresser for bubble gum and not asking. Not the biggest deal in the world, but be polite enough to ask.
Yes, DNA files are being stored on babies born today, and you dont have a choice. The story going into it, they can't match it to antone is kinda BS. if it has a # to it, it can be traced back. Proven double talk, is like the atricle stated,
how can it not be traced, but looked at if there isnt a personal refrence# to the patient? To be honest, i cant say i have a problem all together with it happening, as long as i am aware. Even if in the future one of my children commited a serious offence, and that stored DNA sample was the evidence needed to take someone off the street, i may not be too happy my child did what was done. Truth is, justice needs to be served, and well that's life. The only thing DNA personally affects is keeping an identity a secret. It doesnt mean they can track your every move, just put you in a place, at a certain time, if the evidence (DNA) exsists.
Like i said tho, i have no problem with it, it actually sounds rather creepy if you ask me, but, it affects my daily life in no means. I would however, appretiate the respect, of being asked, reminded, or even told for that matter, that this was going on.
I totally agree....some people are so ignorant and eat up with sue itis where the medical profession is concerned they can't see the forrest for the (money) trees...
They should just throw all the samples away. Then anyone can take them! What a waste of time and energy. These people will give out more identifying information by insisting on giving permission.
BS,They are building a"DNA"base for the one worlders!
Norm - I'm not normally conspiracy minded, but when I read this that was the first thing that jumped to my mind.
I personally don't believe 'THEY' are doing this, but it will have conspiracists spinning for a while!
TAW57,
If an unscrupulous medical records worker was paid highly to sell personal DNA information to cherry-picking insurance companies, a person with cancer potential in their DNA would never be able to get health insurance. Or life insurance.
Are the samples even still coded with a name?? They should not be, and probably aren't. The thing is, we have enough trouble keeping up with research data, let alone keeping data on the unknown subjects of same. Even when we have human subjects- which this is not, and that is why they thought consent was not needed- we have those lost to follow up. Ya'll give the industry too much credit.
This is not government.. These are the Aliens experimenting on us
Please guys... Get Real!
Um...we all have "cancer potential". We need to change the laws so insurance companies don't get to refuse insurance to people who need it. Not try to prevent research that lead to cures for things like cancer.
It is the very government that complains that Americans have no trust in them anymore, and this is the very reason we don't. How is anybody going to trust somebody who is going behind their back and doing something like this. Shame on the goverment for letting this happen. For whatever reason, it does not constitute a betrayel on the people. I don't care what its for, permission should be granted. There is nothing meaner than a parent protecting a child, and I'm pretty damn upset that this was done without my permission. No wonder parents are opting for home births. I wonder if it happens then as well. Every person reading this should be afraid. I'm not a fanatic, but my family comes first, period.
People are going to have to make a choice. Either you want the government to have the authority to regulate it or you don't.
I can guaranteee that private enterprise won't do what's best for the people. Not when they are worried more about profits and quotas.
That's why I feel sorry for those who confuse government regulated health care, with government run health care. It needs to be regulated to make sure everyone gets a fair shake.
Surprised? Didn't you know that the government under Bush, had been testing blood to indicate the super race in the population? Yea, this goes all the way back to the Clinton years. These babies were conceived under the PNAC article 2 regulation. The neocons are just weeding out and cataloging the babies, which will grow into a a super race, to help the Tea Party/Neocon Organization. They will look alike, think alike, and will have a very low intellect. LOL
If you don't think the government is building a giant DNA data base, you are very naive.
Who cares? The bigger it is the better. If they administrate it with their usual level of efficiency it will just be a big, useless dinosaur anyway.
Just curious though....what nefarious purpose do they have for this? So they can catch murderers and rapists 20+ years down the line?
This is what i was thinking when I read this. Or the victims of a murder/kidnapping, another use would be in the event of disaster, plane crash, etc, etc, if someone needs to be identified.
Take what happened on 9-11 as an example, if they had a database with DNA from everyone, how much sooner could the families of the victims had the final answer as to what happened to a family member.
Not everything is an X-file, or big brother.
As far as I'm concerned it should be a mandatory procedure.
Guess you didn't read the part about the sample and donor supposedly being untraceable....typical dope.
They didn't say untraceable, in fact they said the opposite. They said the samples weren't identified by names, so it wouldn't be possibe for everyone doing the actual research to match them up, true. But they also said that parents sometimes requested their child's sample...which wouldn't be possible if the people who originally collected the samples had no way to make the match.
Obviously there'd be no point in getting permission if they coulldn't match up which parents of which children had opted in or out.
So yes...they will be traceable...just not for everyone.
i think its a good idea ; and they can pick out the ones with the low IQ
you can do that at a tea party gathering too.
how do you know that, were you picked, or thrown out cause you looked just to stupid to be there?
Duh....Thats TOO stupid, if you please...check your spelling.
ha! the spelling police pulled over another one.
to funny.
oh my you mispelled a word! " i dont know what you meant by that word. my fragile little mind cannot comprehend the extra letter or missing puncuation, oh my!"
ha! funny!
This whole issue is such a non-issue. Until insurance companies start denying coverage to kids whose blood was used anonymously for various wide-ranging tests decades before, I'm willing to give the scientists access to what is essentially medical waste. Since the majority of babies in the US are born in hospitals, it gives a much broader population base to study as opposed to smaller, volunteer-based studies. I just don't get the hullabaloo. A classmate's child died of one of those rare 29 diseases last year (he died before the test results were in from the pinprick test, an unusual manifestation of the syndrome), so the least I can do is keep the barriers to medical research that might prevent a similar tragedy low.
But, parents are already going through a fight against the hospital, because their child had a blood disorder, and now she cannot get insurance. And, you say I'm stupid. Wait until your child has a deformity or disorder and your @#$ out of luck on the insurance war. You must not be a parent.
If it's a non issue why aren't they asking?
And what samples won't they be asking about next?
Take it to the bank, if I find out you are doing this everyone concerned with this to any degree will need attornies,
I have the means and the inclination, I will make it very expensive for you to do this.
By the way, the baby's parents did not give permission to take blood, it came from the blood taken without permission. Look it up.
Reaves: I have to agree with you that this is an insurance issue. Having not been new parent for over 35 years, and with both grandkids born on military bases and still covered by military insurance (which is good), I didn't realize insurance cos. could label a congenital disease "pre-existing". What a total crock. But I'm sure you're right; it's so the insurance companies won't have to cover anyone they deem 'unfit' from birth.
I sure hope no one on this board that disagrees with government health care ever finds themself in this spot.
Reaves and Alise:
If you can prove that it's the insurance companies behind this and not just doctors/scientists tring to find cures, then I'm with you. But not until then.
Google it. Then I will take your apology.
Then again we could just FIX the health care industry in this country so things like this could NEVER even be considered being a problem.
JUST SAYING.
Read, http://republicbroadcasting.org/?p=6626
JimD: Glad you got my point. The insurance issue would be fairly moot if no one could be denied and everyone was covered from birth.
This is probably one of the best examples of why there should be national health coverage.
well look like like your going to have to start saving a bit more every month for your child health problem, since the insurance wont cover your child. awwwwwww pooor people!
So youre saying you dont want people to know if your child is sick so you can RIP off other people?? Your child need more health coverage because of a blood ailment that other children doesnt have?? you want to pay the same as everyone else because they failed to see that your child has a blood disorder that could have been detected?? Its all about money huh?? Hmmm yeah i surely want to pay for someone arrogance. that their child had something wrong with them. im sure AS A PARENT you everything best for your child, even though its mean RIPPING off the community!
yeah uh huh!
I still don't understand what this has to do with pinprick blood tests at birth. Reaves, the child you mention was diagnosed with a blood disorder. This was not secret information. Are you saying the parents' first knowledge of the blood disorder was the denial by the insurance company? I think not. The insurance company issued a denial because of documented medical history from the doctor and hospital that it was entitled to see. You are arguing apples and oranges here. The child wasn't denied coverage because its blood was used for anonymous testing months or years letter--the kid was denied because he/she has an existing, diagnosed condition. I'm not saying it's fair, but it has nothing to do with after-the-fact use of discarded pinprick blood analysis, which is what this article is talking about.
Good idea, but bad way to go about it.
While the article states that a gap exists between the coded ID # of the sample and the ID of the child, there is a mechanism to backtrace, or future testing in the event of a child's death would not be possible. This was downplayed and presented as some off-hand part of the process. That is troubling.
The article raises two issues. The first is obvious - privacy. Under that one, parents have not been informed that the samples are being stored or used in further research. Excuses include time constraints for training parents. Absurd. Parents are inundated with other forms involving health issues for their children - HIPPA disclaimers and vaccine disclaimers are two that come to mind immediately. These are presented quickly, usually in an off-handed manner, and the ire of the presenter is quite obvious when a parent begins to ask pointed, specific questions. Impatience and condescension are easily discernable.
There's no reason not to inform parents about this. It might well be that they aren't being informed because health professionals do not want to engage in the ethics and ramifications discussions that many parents will raise. Too bad. The parents are responsible for the welfare of their children AND the bills. Something's wrong when a system isn't providing full disclosure, no matter how innocuously the excuse is framed. Parents need to know.
The second underlying issue is how these samples will affect these children years from now. In the health care debate, we heard a myriad of stories of how insurance companies exclude people from coverage based on "pre-existing conditions", a term with meanings as vague and numerous as those for the word "cell". No parent in their right mind would open their child up to situations where the child would be excluded or suffer some harm down the line because of an action early on. Insurance companies are out to make profits. Period. They really don't give a rip about anyone's health. The debate has certainly made this fact abundantly clear. Why would any parent do anything to reduce their child's chances at a decent life?
Corruption associated with the 'bottom line' and investor profits is rampant. Off the top of my head, recent gross examples are Enron, recalls of many products manufactured in China, and FDA alerts on foreign-made meds (or fakes presented as the real thing), and even the fact that Octomom's doctor implanted 7 embryos at one time, which was clearly outside the industry's proscribed procedural norms. Who is to say how the integrity of the samples in question, and associated files, will be preserved?
Additionally, given government corruption that occurs at the rate it does now, in prosecutions of innocent people (emphasized when DNA testing is used to exonerate so many falsely accused even now), and advances in technology that are increasing with snowball-downhill speeds, it wouldn't take but a couple of steps in the wrong direction to begin to target individuals or groups. Human history is fraught with examples of this anyway, even when DNA wasn't an issue at all. Many of our policies are target-based, and have been from the beginning, sometimes with very bad consequences for the group targeted.
And because parents weren't told in the first place, they also weren't given the opportunity to opt-in or opt-out, nor to give written instructions as to how their babies' tissue samples would be used, stored, etc. That alone opens the suspicion door - and rightly so. Data bases are compromised on daily, sometimes hourly bases. Protection of privacy is certainly in order.
When we look at the Constitution, we realize that it was written with an assumption that the people governed would be able to - and would - keep an eye on how it functions and what it does. There was good reason for that.
Ethically, parents should have been, and should be, told. They should always have the choice to opt-in or out, and all ramifications of each choice should be presented thoroughly.
Expediency as an excuse to invade privacy has always been the means by which personal liberty is breached or limited. That is unacceptable.
sorta like monkey 13.
poor bruce willis
No. Not at all like that. If DNA or any other samples were being taken from adult - voting - citizens without their permission and it came to light, this would be an even bigger story. Half the BS agendas in this country are shrouded in the "what's good for children" platitude. This is about being lied to - lies by omission when full disclosure is withheld. The lawsuits are about stopping that.
Good grief...a drop of blood! I also want to decide what is best for MY child, and saving a drop of blood won't make a bean of difference.
For the parents that are so worried about DNA getting out there maybe they should stop throwing disposable diapers in the land fills...maybe some evil government agency will dig up your babies DNA in the future. While you are at it, you may want to take your own vac to the beauty shop and not leave your hair on the floor, wash your own dishes when you eat out, and for goodness sake...don't let your baby cough or drool in public.
good point!!!
As usual, a foolish comment...a baby's diapers don't have a name attached to them unless you're extremely wealthy and can afford personalized diapers. Hope you don't get called for jury duty...dummy.
I find it kind of hard to believe "they" care less about our DNA. All this fear mongering about privacy and parental permissions...wow. They've been using these samples for research for years and no one's had any bad experiences because of it. Now a bunch of over-reacting hysterical parents might derail a source of medical research that might have one day saved your child's life...all for overblown and imaginary fears of "what if".
Insurance companies don't have access to these samples, they are used for medical research. If your child is diagnosed with some medical problem that was present at birth, it won't matter if there is some old blood sample around or not. Your child will be given tests at the time the illness is apparent and the insurance companies will do everything they can to keep from paying for their medical care. They don't need some moldy old blood sample to say the condition is congenital or pre-existing. They can get a brand new one for a lot less trouble and say that.
The CA Supreme Court, ruled several years ago in the Regents case that once your tissue leaves your body you no longer own it, the first person to come upon it does - usually the doctor.
I would be suprised if that applies when the law requires you to give up a sample.
To get a dna sample from a citiizen you have to get a court order, the law requiring this would have to have safegurds built into it,.
All of you people having so much fun with this would be very upset to find out that an insurance company was bribing employees to run a check on a potential customer.
If you think the codes are sufficent protection you are in error.
Personally, I would sue, every one involved in any fashion would find themself,in a civil suit, where I would do my best to bankrupt them.
How many times have you heard of a court NOT giving law enforcement an order for DNA when asked? It's just another BS requirement to make you think you still have some rights. Dream on....
Always something to whine and moan about. Next they will complain that someone is using their feces without their permission.
screw the parents. do it anyway. map the DNA. record anything and everything. this is a human being. they should be documented.
Folks in case you are unaware Big Brother is here among us right now. This blood is just the beginning of a nightmare of Biblical proportions. Government is just beginning to stockpile information about who is healthy and who isn't. Once they get this Health Care Bill passed, this year, 5 years or 20 years from now, they will already have genetic information on people who will likely cost to much 50, 60, or 70 years into the future.
For the love of all that is right understand that our Constitution does in no way provide authority for this to occur. Stand up to Congress and demand that they follow the Constitution and that to deviate from it is absolutely unacceptable. If you won't do it for yourselves, then do it for your unborn children and grandchildren. Stop this NOW before it cannot be stopped!
Am I an alarmist? Absolutely not! I am a retired scientist, a realist, and I see the writing on the wall. STOP THIS!
I'm sorry, but I take issue with you claiming that your speculation somehow doesn't make you an alarmist. I especially take issue with you claiming that just because you're a retired scientist, that means you're not an alarmist. Fact is, most people who apply an overly pessimistic and often sinister agenda to everything around them claim that they're just being "realists", but if we could trust everyone's self-assessment skills we wouldn't have nearly as much red tape in the world.
Everything you have presented here is speculation. The facts in no way support your conclusions. Furthermore, the constitution is not a document that is intended to micromanage our country's laws, nor is it the sole source of authority for all federal activity. It is not at all connected to this issue, so why would you bring it into your argument?
Read history! Also, I beg your pardon but the proposed Health Care reforms are most definitely a Constitutional issue. If you are to simple or unable to understand that you aren't worth debating with.
Oh good grief. Then they'll start killing off the sick ones I suppose? Sheesh.
You could look at this another way, being a scientist and a realist and all. You could acknowledge that it is invaluable for medical research to have such a large pool of samples with which to work, you could also acknowledge that they have already had breakthroughs because of access to these samples, and you might even envision that they use this stuff to help lower costs of future medical care by finding treatments and cures. You know....so they don't have to kill us off to save money.
Or you can go all "chicken little" on us.
the govt is obviously collecting the blood of the innocent to send into outerspace to start the human race on another planet. get a grip.
THe blood is that of the baby/parents. The fact someone said the blood lost is of no consequence for hte baby anymore has no conscience or ethics. I doubt the majority of parents would say "no" to letting the hospital/creeps/goverment to having the blood sample, but it clearly is something to seek consent.
If I masterbate onto a cloth, that fluid is no longer of "use to me", so therefore anyone can come and harvest it? Same with menstrual blood? What about cancer cells removed from a skin lesion or an amputated digit? Some things we don't need to know about, but certainly this @!$%# can't be taken by others for their own purposes without consent, regardless of intentions.
Wow nice over extended analogy there gimmeabreak. My question to you is, does it matter if someone stole your lost fluid? Signing, or not singing another piece of paper would really make you feel more control in your life? I don't think people really care what happens to their blood sample, I believe they just want to feel the illusion of freedom.
"...but certainly this @!$%# can't be taken by others for their own purposes without consent, regardless of intentions"
gimme: When you have a digit or limb amputated, or cancer cells removed, or give birth (including the placenta), or have your appendix or tonsils removed, or any one of a million things, you sign a consent form that basically stipulates that the hospital or clinic will 'dispose' of those 'bits'. To my knowledge, they don't say just where they will be disposed. The trash men don't even let you sign a form when they remove your 'bodily wastes' from the rubbish can, and who knows where it ends up... (including, who may have gone through your trash while it stood at the curb.)
I agree with Risha; does it really matter? What 'might' happen has been happening since the '60's, so there's really not much we can do to stop it now, despite any lawsuits.
i'd hate for my baby to end up as a cloning experiment. (oh yeah... this doesn't happen in america)
what makes you think that your kid is so damn special that it might be cloned. Don't flatter yourself.
Wow.... people will create an issue over ANYTHING. Pass a law to opt that they randomize the identity of the "doners" and be done with it.
Oh, your a man, and lets guess........not married with children.... and living with mom right?
Reaves, many of us are parents here. You can't get the insurance pay for your
child's treatment and not disclose the condition. They will know what it is by
how your doctor treats it. But the doctor could treat it better if he had access
to this horrific DNA bank. What's better for the child?
Point is, I would rather know first what my child's condition is before the insurance company.
Sure. That would make sense if you could pay for the
treatment should you need it and for a s long as you need it. Not many people
can.
read the web address that I posted above then I would like to see if you feel the same way.
I read it...still don't see what the big deal is. And yes, I have children and grandchildren, all of whom have had the newborn blood sample taken and tested, and so presumably on record somewhere. Big deal.
If the test finds an illness, then the insurance company will find that out when you get treatment for your child, so what difference does it make if they find out sooner? If you're sick and insured, what is the point of keeping it secret? Are you going to prevent your child from getting treatment so the insurance company doesn't find out they are sick?
What needs to change are laws allowing insurance companies to refuse to insure people who need it most, not trying to destroy a source of medical research that might save more children's lives.
Only the Government AND science has the hubris. What gives them the right to supercede all ethical and legal issues like this?! If, as they say, it's just a matter of educating parents (those thick, dumb people who procreate, sarcasm intended), then why don't they do such a simple thing? After all, it's just a matter of shoving another piece of paper in front of someone in a rush to get to the delivery room to sign. Nobody ever reads these forms anyway. (And yes, all the sarcasm is intended.)
Because as we have seen its really hard to educate some people. The information is out there.
get over it you cry babies. no harm...no foul
Hey stupid, feel free to go to the court and supply samples of any part of your person to anyone interested, keep your nasty mouth and little mind off of ours.
Jerry, Amen to you.
What you are failing to acknowledge here, is that by refusing to allow these samples to be used in medical research, you may be slowing or stopping the discovery of treatments and cures that some children need to survive. For what? Because you are genuinely afraid that some stranger really gives a rip about your DNA? Is there really a tangible harm to you? Does it really outweigh the potential benefits?
I'd happily give them blood samples every week if it would help them find cures for some of the terrible illnesses children suffer from. My kids are blood doners and give platelets and plasma every two weeks and couldn't care less who has their DNA.
No harm has come from this program so far...so why end something that can actually help kids...just because our knickers are in a knot because no one asked us first? Is that worth preventing researchers from having everything they can use to help save lives?
This is really REALLY silly. Who cares if drops of blood taken at birth are used for studies? Actually, why NOT use them? They can be very important for the babies themselves, not to mention the rest of mankind.
See post above
What this is about for some paranoid people is having the illusion of freedom. (The freedom of consent over such a trivial thing. They want a sense of control, it doesn't really matter, but they want to feel in control.
Hey Jerry... Grow up.
Sheep are meant to be slaughtered, I'm just glad I'm old and won't have to watch.
If idiotic parents do not want their child tested, no problem, do not test their child, also do not TREAT THEIR CHILD FOR ANY OF THE DISEASES BEING TESTED . Also that child should not be allowed in any public schools or universities. They should alo be prevented from any possible contact with people susceptible to the diseases tested for. Maybe with stipulations such as these even stupid people should understand the importance of scientific study. But again I do have a hard time thinking there ARE people out there that are so paranoid they believe someone is using THEIR child's cells for a FRANKENSTEIN CLONE. How ridiculous can some people be?
Ray, don't be an idiot (a word you seem to enjoy using) do you really believe this is just about science? Who pays for science? More to the point who is paying for this "science".
The government is banking on the general public not questioning them. They are basically saying that you are not smart enough, important enough, or worthy enough to bother getting permission from, regarding YOUR baby. I don't know about you, but I take great offense to that. As with prohibition, it is the job of the American people to let the Government know when they have crossed the line. In the article I mentioned above, they even use the extreme that it is not worth the money to tell the public that they are selling to experimental agencies. And, your not worried about it?
It does not surprize me one bit that the public is just now finding out about this it has been going on for years. Why is the public so blind, deaf, and dumb????
I guess the public's only real joint concern is gossip and who's doing who. The government is doing us don't ya know?
It had been a don't ask for consent and we won't tell you what we are doing. When I told them they did not have permission to store my son's DNA the nurse's jaw droped and she asked how did I know. That was more than 20 years ago. They also tried to get me to sign a paper stating I would not sue them in the unlikly event my child was injured from vaccine which I told them no I will not sign the paper and my son did not receive vaccine because of it. I did not have to say anything about religion.
If someone wants to store my blood, they better have my permission. It is mine, and always be. But I am sure, if they offered a one-time cash payment, then I might sell it to them. And our stupid government would probably allow it.
Give some reasons. Why does it matter if someone stores your blood? Does it hurt? How much does it matter to you? Better reasons that, its mine lol. You're last comment isn't relevant to the article and makes little sense but you are definitely all American with that give me money attitude.
Risha,
Why?
Because if they can take your blood without your consent what is keeping
them from taking your stupid tongue, next time around...for their experiments
testing how stupid surface thinkers limit individual rights.