USA: Compulsory DNA screening has arrived

Page 1 of 1 [ 15 posts ]

psych
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 22 Nov 2005
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,488
Location: w london

05 May 2008, 10:23 am

The Newborn Screening Saves Lives Act of 2007

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-1858
http://www.britanniaradio.co.uk/?q=node/11364

Quote:

President Bush last week signed into law a bill which will see the federal government begin to screen the DNA of all newborn babies in the U.S. within six months, a move critics have described as the first step towards the establishment of a national DNA database.
....
Sections of the bill also make it clear that DNA may be used in genetic experiments and tests.
.....
Brase states that S.1858 and H.R. 3825, the House version of the bill, will:

Establish a national list of genetic conditions for which newborns and children are to be tested.
Establish protocols for the linking and sharing of genetic test results nationwide.
Build surveillance systems for tracking the health status and health outcomes of individuals diagnosed at birth with a genetic defect or trait.
Use the newborn screening program as an opportunity for government agencies to identify, list, and study "secondary conditions" of individuals and their families.
Subject citizens to genetic research without their knowledge or consent.

"Soon, under this bill, the DNA of all citizens will be housed in government genomic biobanks and considered governmental property for government research," Brase writes. "The DNA taken at birth from every citizen is essentially owned by the government, and every citizen becomes a potential subject of government-sponsored genetic research."

"The public is clueless. S. 1858 imposes a federal agenda of DNA databanking and population-wide genetic research. It does not require consent and there are no requirements to fully inform parents about the warehousing of their child's DNA for the purpose of genetic research."

zghost
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 28 Oct 2007
Age: 49
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,190
Location: Southeast Texas

05 May 2008, 12:37 pm

Yet another good reason not to reproduce.

Maxrebo
Pileated woodpecker

Joined: 6 Apr 2008
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 178

05 May 2008, 2:02 pm

Has the guy from the lion king sayed "It starts" This can never be good. Whats this gonna lead discrimnation against autistics or other bad things. nothing good could come from it.

_________________
Everythings the same I am still cant sleep and still hate school.

jupiter_crash
Tufted Titmouse

Joined: 7 Apr 2008
Age: 43
Gender: Female
Posts: 33

05 May 2008, 3:50 pm

I'm so disturbed right now. Sheesh!

monty
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Sep 2007
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,741

05 May 2008, 3:57 pm

PKU and other genetic conditions are routinely tested for - if an infant with PKU is identified early, it can be given a special diet that will reduce the chance of mental retardation. Mandatory testing may be a good thing. The US government is moving forward to make genetic discrimination illegal.

Quote:

Congress sent President Bush a bill Thursday forbidding employers and insurance companies from using genetic tests showing people are at risk of developing cancer, heart disease or other ailments to reject their job applications, promotions or health care coverage, or in setting premiums.

Bush was expected soon to sign the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, which lawmakers and advocates called "the first major civil rights act of the 21st century." Federal law already bans discrimination by race and gender.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,354210,00.html

oscuria
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,748

05 May 2008, 6:05 pm

I want to know who my ancestors were.

acannon
Raven
Raven

Joined: 28 Sep 2007
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 122

15 May 2008, 12:19 am

That's messed up. I have an almost 6 mo who I had at home. I did have to take him in for bilirubin tests (jaundice) but hopefully that's all they tested for. This was when he was a newborn, so this bill was not signed at that time. If I have any more children, I'm having them at home, just like my first. You don't have to not reproduce, just stay away from conventional doctors as much as possible. I've been lucky that he's been healthy and we haven't had to visit the doctor much.

Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

15 May 2008, 12:32 am

acannon wrote:

Why are you endangering your child in such a manner? Don't advise people to avoid medical care, they might listen and that would be detrimental to their health and safety.

_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

acannon
Raven
Raven

Joined: 28 Sep 2007
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 122

15 May 2008, 12:35 am

I don't mean completely avoiding medical care. Obviously if my son was sick or broke a bone I would take him to the doctor. I'm not saying to be neglectful. I'm just saying you don't have to go to all the well baby visits every two months and you don't have to go to the doctor for every little cold. There are things you can do at home that can help your child feel better without having to take them to a doctor. If it's serious, though, of course go to a doctor, but try to treat it at home first if at all possible. That's all I'm saying.

Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

15 May 2008, 12:43 am

acannon wrote:

Yes, but giving birth at home is putting the child (and yourself) at risk... hospitals provide a cleaner, safer environment for that.

_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

acannon
Raven
Raven

Joined: 28 Sep 2007
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 122

15 May 2008, 12:54 am

You'd think so, but not really. Think about it: there are so many people in hospitals with illnesses. Even people who are ill and go to the hospital can get other illnesses and infections there. Pregnancy is not an illness and I don't think it should be treated as such when people go to the hospital to have a baby. We took all the necessary precautions and we live quite close to a hospital, so there was no problem there. They're really restrictive in the hospital about what you can and can't do when it comes to the birth and what happens to the baby after and I didn't want any pain medications, which they push on people, so I decided it was best to do it at home with a midwife and her apprentice in attendance. I'm one of those people who holds the belief that yes, it's good for children to be out and exposed to bacteria and not use anti-bacterial everything, but it's not necessary to put them in a situation where they would be exposed to germs, like in the hospital (unless absolutely necessary) or the doctor's for a well baby visit. He was healthy and growing well, so I didn't see a need to bring him to the doctor's for his check-ups, which don't consist of much, really, especially while flu season was going on, because I didn't want to risk him getting the flu.

darkstone100
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Mar 2008
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,965
Location: Yuma, AZ

15 May 2008, 8:18 am

genetically engineered super soldiers, what else would they need all that dna for?
(this was a joke)

_________________
I am so omniscient, if there were to be two omniscience's I would be both! Prepare yourselves for the subjugation! - Ziltoid The Omniscient.

DW_a_mom
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 22 Feb 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,689
Location: Northern California

15 May 2008, 11:19 am

Orwell wrote:

acannon wrote:

Yes, but giving birth at home is putting the child (and yourself) at risk... hospitals provide a cleaner, safer environment for that.

Not necessarily. Our doctor and pediatrician both work with a network of midwives and are very supportive of the option. I didn't choose home birth, and being in the hospital worked for me, but a friend of mine did, and it was a very well researched and thought out decision, with a midwife who had solid doctor back up. Besides, she was 2 miles from a hospital should anything happen. I don't know of any doctors who would argue that the choice she made was not perfectly safe.

I think these things are very personal. Those I know who choose home birth are generally the most informed and cautious medical consumers I know. I guess it depends on the reasons for the choice, and how informed the parent is, but most take the responsibility very, very seriously.

As for the original post and issue ...

It is very unsettling. As a parent, I understand WHY they want to do this, and I do see the potential benefits, but the potential missuses are many and I am really wondering if the powers that be have fully thought that through. Or if they have and are hoping we won't (even scarier).

_________________
Mom to an amazing young adult AS son, plus an also amazing non-AS daughter. Most likely part of the "Broader Autism Phenotype" (some traits).

Roxas_XIII
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Jan 2007
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,217
Location: Laramie, WY

15 May 2008, 2:57 pm

I raise my finger to the governent in salute... the middle one

_________________
"Yeah, so this one time, I tried playing poker with tarot cards... got a full house, and about four people died." ~ Unknown comedian

Happy New Year from WP's resident fortune-teller! May the cards be ever in your favor.

YowlingCat
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Feb 2007
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,004

15 May 2008, 3:13 pm

The US is not the first to establish a national database. Iceland was the first, followed by Sweden, Estonia and the UK.

Quote:

Population Genetic Databases: A Comparative Analysis Of The Law In Iceland, Sweden, Estonia And The UK
Translated Title: Population Genetic Databases: A Comparative Analysis Of The Law In Iceland, Sweden, Estonia And The UK
Publication: TRAMES (1-2/2004)
Author Name: Kaye, Jane; Wendel, Lotta; Helgason, Hordur Helgi; Sild, Tarmo; Nõmper, Ants;
Language: English
Subject: Law
Issue: 1-2/2004
Page Range: 15-33
No. of Pages: 19
File size: 91 KB
Download Fee: 2.5 Euro (€)
Summary: The first population genetic database proposed in the world was the Icelandic Health Sector Database in 1998, followed by the Umangenomics proposal in Sweden, the Eesti Geenivaramu in Estonia and the UK Biobank. These genetic databases have been established with the primary goal of carrying out genetic research on populations to determine the functionality of genes, as well as the relationships between genes, lifestyle and environment. Population genetic databases contain DNA samples, personal information from interviews and medical records, as well as genealogies and family histories on whole populations for genetic research. This variety of information and the issues that are raised by its use, such as ownership, consent, feedback, genetic counselling, benefit sharing and access to the database, have caused a heated debate in many countries. This paper compares the way in which the law deals with these issues in each jurisdiction through specialist legislation and how these issues challenge existing legal precedents. The conclusion reached is that these issues are not currently addressed by the law across these jurisdictions in a coherent manner and we are some way from achieving a uniform legal structure for population genetic databases across Europe.
Keywords: Human biobanking; genetic database; legislation; comparative survey; Estonia; Great Britain; Iceland; Sweden

from:
CEEOL TRAMES

There are several papers on the ethics of these databases and the uses of them.

Page 1 of 1 [ 15 posts ]

Jump to:

USA: Compulsory DNA screening has arrived Post Reply New Topic

USA: Compulsory DNA screening has arrived