News Article: Bush Signs Bill to Take All Newborns' DNA - Page 2

[wombjuice]

Originally Posted by NatureMama3

my issue with the DNA is multiple, including potential exclusion from health insurance and life insurance based on genetic probabilities.

I never thought about that! That is a good reason to oppose this law...better than my "they will clone my babies!!!" reason.

[vesper0]

Originally Posted by BlessedOne

be rest assured, they are probably not keeping a vile of your kid's blood on hand somewhere. It will just be numbers and stats of the tests performed (stored with millions of other people...not alone on a wall with flashing lights). Which I am sure the personal facts that are available are already used for research and such. That is one way they come up with populace statistics and such.
I understand, it is nice to have some sense of privacy...but lets face it....that is pretty much unheard of anymore......for several reasons.

I don't think that she can rest assure that they aren't doing just that! Samples are kept at labs and in some cases indefinitely. I am surprised that this is not widely known, but any woman who has ever had a pap should know that those samples are kept on file indefinitely, too. I was even told this when the pap sample was taken by my doctor when I was 18 years old. So, this has been going on for the last decade or two, at least. Just read here: http://www.talkleft.com/story/2005/03/03/395/96133
And they don't need your permission to use it for unauthorized uses.

[BlessedOne]

Originally Posted by BlessedOne

be rest assured, they are probably not keeping a vile of your kid's blood on hand somewhere. It will just be numbers and stats of the tests performed (stored with millions of other people...not alone on a wall with flashing lights). Which I am sure the personal facts that are available are already used for research and such. That is one way they come up with populace statistics and such.
I understand, it is nice to have some sense of privacy...but lets face it....that is pretty much unheard of anymore......for several reasons.

also....all be it a dumb point, but keep in mind, we are constantly dropping off clues of our DNA everywhere we go.....we drop a hair here, leave a finger print there......but of course...these are typically not searched for and tested...unless it is a crime scene....lol.

Also my question is IF they are going to keep more on file than just some numbers (meaning an actual sample of DNA), how in the world are they going to store and preserve (if needed) millions and millions of people's data? That seems like a lot of work and a lot of space needed. Which I understand, you can get DNA in small forms, such as by a hair or a fingerprint, but they would still have to protect it somehow... as to not mess up, lose or mix match the info....... but truly...is it all worth it? To me they would just have the DNA code......not actual DNA. Which I understand that is just as bad to a degree. But really I do not think we really have much to fret about.
Also, it is not like they are going to sift through all of the millions of millions of people and pull out your kid's file and start experimenting with it. If any research or experiementation was done, it would probably be clumped with tons of other people......unless of course the child had some freak non nomal DNA sequence, in which they wanted to test to see if the child was in fact human and not alien.....

Now if they start REQUIRING EVERYONE to get injected with a monitoring system......THEN I will be one of the first to throw a fit and try to stop it!

[BlessedOne]

Originally Posted by NatureMama3

: I need to read those clearly...

very glad I generally DON'T do WBV.

my issue with the DNA is multiple, including potential exclusion from health insurance and life insurance based on genetic probabilities.

many(if not all) health and life insurance companies require blood work or other testing........so they would have any info they needed if they wanted it.

[NatureMama3]

blood work yes, but there are no standards requiring DNA testing at present. Being turned down for high cholesterol is one thing, being turned down because you carry the gene for breast cancer (regardless of your health) is quite another.

[BlessedOne]

Originally Posted by vesper0

I don't think that she can rest assure that they aren't doing just that! Samples are kept at labs and in some cases indefinitely. I am surprised that this is not widely known, but any woman who has ever had a pap should know that those samples are kept on file indefinitely, too. I was even told this when the pap sample was taken by my doctor when I was 18 years old. So, this has been going on for the last decade or two, at least. Just read here: http://www.talkleft.com/story/2005/03/03/395/96133
And they don't need your permission to use it for unauthorized uses.

again, I would be suprised if they decide to have an actual vile of blood from every person stored....as said prior...that would take a lot of space and work. Perhaps they choose to just use a dab of dried blood on a piece of paper....I do not know..I have not read where they say the method they plan to use. But even if it is a dried blood spot, I do not see why it matters that much. But everyone is entitled to their own opinion.
I will say that if it did happen to turn out that they did require a vile of mine and my kids blood for them to have on hand, then I would not like it much and I would probably throw a fit about having to give the blood......but I still would not freak out about it for reasons that have been presented thus far. But I do not plan on any of mine or my kid's blood leaving our body anytime soon.

p.s. I personally do not care if they have my pap records stored or even blood work info
If they do have all of that stored, then the government and/or medical society sure are pack rats....lol

[majazama]

new world order

scary! glad I don't live in the states.

[soso-lynn]

I work with a lot of statistics and such and I believe that this bill is much more about keeping track of patterns of genetic conditions and mutation, the same way that we already do in many other ways. I think that, realistically, the DNA samples would be tested for several genetic 'defects' and statistics would then be produced. Whether or not the samples will be destroyed is another matter, although it is entirely possible that they might be used up in the testing process.

If this was here in Canada, I would not be too worried, but I can definitely see the potential problems and consequences of such a bill. It does not seem too paranoid to think that they might make testing mandatory in the name of public health, the same way they get court orders for c-sections. It does not either seem beyond the US government to keep DNA profiles on file for future 'crime fighting' purposes. I would also be concerned about the potential for future eugenics based policies where the government might encourage or force people with certain genetic characteristics to not have children. Perhaps it is because I was just reading an article in an academic journal about how women who give birth in California prisons are usually sterilized (either with their 'consent' or because of some fake 'medical emergency'), but I would be very scared of the government having that kind of information.

I find it quite ridiculous that the government is going around passing bills like this while there still is no universal free health care. I guess we can see where their priorities are.

[wombjuice]

Originally Posted by soso-lynn

I would also be concerned about the potential for future eugenics based policies where the government might encourage or force people with certain genetic characteristics to not have children.

That's exactly what I was thinking.

[April422]

Originally Posted by feminine_earth

I'm sorry, but there is no way I could ever rest assured knowing that my or my kids' DNA is no longer my property...regardless of how inconspicuous its holding container may be.

So you've homebirthed and know where all of your children's placentas are?
You've never given blood, a blood sample, had blood work?

They're not keeping your DNA, they're trying to make testing for diseases such as PKU uniform across the US and they want to track those statistics and offer early or improved intervention to those who may be diagnosed with a genetic disorder via the newborn screening. Early intervention and treatment lessens the long term burden on our society and health system.

That said, we didn't opt for PKU/genetic screening, so this doesn't bother me. But if we had a family history or via genetic counseling found out we SHOULD test, I'd have no issues with having my child tested by what is commonly known as PKU testing.

[April422]

Originally Posted by feminine_earth

However, there are no bills being passed by the president saying that the government will be going around scraping DNA off of cups. I don't really see how that relates to making DNA tests of newborns mandatory, ya know?

But this bill doesn't say that either.

It's providing grant funding for more accurate and uniform testing and providing funding to improve or find treatments for those conditions that don't yet have treatments and making that information and those resources more readily accessible to those living in the US.

you're not giving a vial of your child's blood to the government to do whatever they want with. It's the standard PKU collection procedures and once those tests are performed there usually isn't any leftover samples that could be used for much else.

Also those who mention that this is a perfect example of why not to do WBV's why? PKU testing is often done in hospital, ped's don't normally do them unless there is a follow up needed due to improper testing or questionable results with the first test.

[wombjuice]

Originally Posted by April422

So you've homebirthed and know where all of your children's placentas are?
You've never given blood, a blood sample, had blood work?

They're not keeping your DNA, they're trying to make testing for diseases such as PKU uniform across the US and they want to track those statistics and offer early or improved intervention to those who may be diagnosed with a genetic disorder via the newborn screening. Early intervention and treatment lessens the long term burden on our society and health system.

That said, we didn't opt for PKU/genetic screening, so this doesn't bother me. But if we had a family history or via genetic counseling found out we SHOULD test, I'd have no issues with having my child tested by what is commonly known as PKU testing.

I don't have any children yet, but I will be eating my placentas when I do give birth, so yes, I will know where my children's DNA is (besides, obviously, the DNA shed through normal occurances).

I have given blood, I've had a pap smear, this has nothing to do with me. I can consent. Babies can't.

The bill SAID that the DNA will be stored and government property and used for research, didn't it? I need to go to bed so I can't look it up again, but I thought I read that on the gov search site.

[April422]

Originally Posted by feminine_earth

I don't have any children yet, but I will be eating my placentas when I do give birth, so yes, I will know where my children's DNA is (besides, obviously, the DNA shed through normal occurances).

I have given blood, I've had a pap smear, this has nothing to do with me. I can consent. Babies can't.

The bill SAID that the DNA will be stored and government property and used for research, didn't it? I need to go to bed so I can't look it up again, but I thought I read that on the gov search site.

The bill does not say that. I just went back and read it again, and no where does it state that.

That aside, babies can't consent to a whole host of decisions we make as parents, that's part of life. We do what we feel is in their best interest given the circumstances.

[BlessedOne]

Originally Posted by soso-lynn

I find it quite ridiculous that the government is going around passing bills like this while there still is no universal free health care. I guess we can see where their priorities are.

I really do not get how people blame the government for health care prices. To me that is in the health care professionals <(drs, medical suppliers, ect) jurisdiciton....blame them. Drs are the ones that charge the outrageous price for a simple visit.....not the goverment. To me the government should not even have to do anything in regards to health care, unless they are making the medical professionals charge less. People complain that the government gets into people's business to much and then they complain that they are not getting into it enough!

I would say that many many people in the states do get some form of governmental help for health care prices....such as through medicare and medicaid. It pays better than most insurances. Sadly most people take advantage of the system....if the government IS going to regulate health care prices, then they should be more selective on the screening of individuals that 'qualify' for govermental medical assistance.

But of course that is a whole different debate that is off topic, but I just thought I would throw that out there....

[April422]

Originally Posted by BlessedOne

I really do not get how people blame the government for health care prices. To me that is in the health care professionals <(drs, medical suppliers, ect) jurisdiciton....blame them. Drs are the ones that charge the outrageous price for a simple visit.....not the goverment. To me the government should not even have to do anything in regards to health care, unless they are making the medical professionals charge less. People complain that the government gets into people's business to much and then they complain that they are not getting into it enough!

I would say that many many people in the states do get some form of governmental help for health care prices....such as through medicare and medicaid. It pays better than most insurances. Sadly most people take advantage of the system....if the government IS going to regulate health care prices, then they should be more selective on the screening of individuals that 'qualify' for govermental medical assistance.

But of course that is a whole different debate that is off topic, but I just thought I would throw that out there....

If the insurance companies didn't reimburse at such piss poor rates, the doctors wouldn't have to charge so much to try and cover their overhead and malpractice insurance.

Some insurance companies pay DRs .50 on the dollar of what they'll bill. that's highway robbery.

[kaylee18]

The link given in the OP is not a news article. It's a blog entry.

The bill to which it links does not authorize the use of DNA for experimentation.

By the way, the metabolic ("PKU") screening is not a DNA test. It's a blood analysis, looking at the components of the blood (such as the levels of certain proteins) that might indicate a genetic disorder. The DNA itself is not sequenced. Sequencing DNA is extremely expensive. A recent project to sequence the entire human genome (of a single human!) took years, millions of dollars, and a nationwide effort.

The DNA in a dried blood sample is also badly damaged by the drying of the cells. The sample is not taken for DNA, but for proteins. A wet sample is needed for DNA analysis. Usually a sample from a cheek swab that has been preserved in a specimen solution is used for DNA. Semen is another example of a specimen that can be used for DNA analysis. Even those analyses only look at small parts of the DNA (called "markers"). They do not sequence the entire genome or go hunting for new genes. It's too expensive.

The idea that the newborn metabolic screening program is being used to steal babies' DNA is not only far-fetched but also harmful to public health. Newborn metabolic screening saves thousands of babies every year from a lifetime of brain damage or physical disability, and hundreds more from death. The majority of babies diagnosed through the screening program have no family history. Not having a disorder that runs in your family is not a reason to forego the screening. There are mothers on MDC whose children have been saved by it. Please research these things well before going with a blogger's agenda.

[April422]

Originally Posted by kaylee18

The link given in the OP is not a news article. It's a blog entry.

The bill to which it links does not authorize the use of DNA for experimentation.

By the way, the metabolic ("PKU") screening is not a DNA test. It's a blood analysis, looking at the components of the blood (such as the levels of certain proteins) that might indicate a genetic disorder. The DNA itself is not sequenced. Sequencing DNA is extremely expensive. A recent project to sequence the entire human genome (of a single human!) took years, millions of dollars, and a nationwide effort.

The DNA in a dried blood sample is also badly damaged by the drying of the cells. The sample is not taken for DNA, but for proteins. A wet sample is needed for DNA analysis. Usually a sample from a cheek swab that has been preserved in a specimen solution is used for DNA. Semen is another example of a specimen that can be used for DNA analysis. Even those analyses only look at small parts of the DNA (called "markers"). They do not sequence the entire genome or go hunting for new genes. It's too expensive.

The idea that the newborn metabolic screening program is being used to steal babies' DNA is not only far-fetched but also harmful to public health. Newborn metabolic screening saves thousands of babies every year from a lifetime of brain damage or physical disability, and hundreds more from death. The majority of babies diagnosed through the screening program have no family history. Not having a disorder that runs in your family is not a reason to forego the screening. There are mothers on MDC whose children have been saved by it. Please research these things well before going with a blogger's agenda.

[ErinBird]

Did you read the text?

[April422]

Originally Posted by ErinBird

Did you read the text?

Who are you asking?

I read the text, and kaylee nailed it.

[BlessedOne]

Originally Posted by April422

If the insurance companies didn't reimburse at such piss poor rates, the doctors wouldn't have to charge so much to try and cover their overhead and malpractice insurance.

Some insurance companies pay DRs .50 on the dollar of what they'll bill. that's highway robbery.

yeah I will say that insurance companies do charge insane malpractice insurance rates (the birthing center I used for my second, went out of business because it could not keep up with the insurance required to stay open). I would assume that malpractice insurance is so pricey because of all of the 'sue happy' people out there. The insurance company wants to cover their hind quarters too. hehe I am just guessing.

Either way......somewhere there is a start to the cycle of high medical care and I do not think it leads to the government.

Just my personal opinion...