A form of big brother....or nothing to worry about?

[remphish1]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/02/04/baby.dna.government/index.html?hpt=C2

 

Thoughts?

[JohnO]

Definitely big brother!

 

This guy scares the hell out of me!

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.

 

But they don't have 'an overriding interest in protecting' the 10's of thousands of babies that are aborted each year? Talk about a bioethical conflict of interest!

[Guest Speed Racer]

I personally don't have any problem with that; having a large pool of DNA like that is a goldmine for research. I certainly wouldn't give a crap if it was my child. On the other hand, I think that states collecting this kind of data should absolutley notify parents and have an opt-out clause. From a research ethics point of view, my understanding is that as long is there is aboslutely no way that researchers can connect the data to individuals, neither the individuals nor their parents need to consent to participation in the research. I suspect that in the next few years there will be a consent form parents have to sign.

 

 

The article is fear-mongering first, and informing as an afterthought.

[Guest Jules]

Definitely big brother!

 

This guy scares the hell out of me!

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.

 

But they don't have 'an overriding interest in protecting' the 10's of thousands of babies that are aborted each year? Talk about a bioethical conflict of interest!

apples and oranges and stuff

[Guest Speed Racer]

Additionally, this would be an amazing way to track data in real time about environmental factors that may be harming populations. For instance, if all Minnesota babies conceived and carried to term near a 3M chemical processing plant had an identical or similar genetic variation, researchers tracking the DNA from that location would have a much faster time detecting possible sources of the variation, without having to wait for symptoms to surface, waiting for the parents to report the symptoms, etc.

[JohnO]

apples and oranges and stuff

Not from the perspective of bioethics if you believe the State has an interest in the child. Either the State has an interest or it does not. Why wouldn't they collect DNA from all abortions, mother and child? Or if abortion is too prickly a topic then from anyone going for an operation or doctors visit?

[Guest Jules]

OK, apples and bananas.

[Guest Speed Racer]

Not from the perspective of bioethics if you believe the State has an interest in the child. Either the State has an interest or it does not. Why wouldn't they collect DNA from all abortions, mother and child? Or if abortion is too prickly a topic then from anyone going for an operation or doctors visit?

 

Because the sample, in this instance, is live babies, and the state law in these cases does not recognize a fetus as a live baby. For all you know, certain states also collect and track DNA from aborted fetuses - it's just that the article was only referencing this particular sample. The state can decide whether it has an interest in fetuses, but as this article sets forth, the states only seem to exercise an interest in living, breathing, out-of-the-womb babies.

[JohnO]

Because the sample, in this instance, is live babies, and the state law in these cases does not recognize a fetus as a live baby. For all you know, certain states also collect and track DNA from aborted fetuses - it's just that the article was only referencing this particular sample. The state can decide whether it has an interest in fetuses, but as this article sets forth, the states only seem to exercise an interest in living, breathing, out-of-the-womb babies.

Forget about bioethics on what Constitutional grounds? Where's the ACLU???

[Guest Speed Racer]

Forget about bioethics on what Constitutional grounds? Where's the ACLU???

 

Where did I say to forget bioethics? Could you please articulate your concerns?

[bjorn_skurj]

Sigh. If everybody's DNA is a database somewhere, how the fuck is anybody going to get away with anything?

[Sir Stewart]

I'm really upset about this but I'm not telling which side I'm on.

[The High Heat]

Sigh. If everybody's DNA is a database somewhere, how the fuck is anybody going to get away with anything?

But it doesn't matter so long as the bloody leather gloves don't fit over the latex-gloved hands. See the beauty of loopholes?

[bjorn_skurj]

Cochrane is dead, though, so not everyone can afford him. Like a public defender is going to think up that kind of shit.

[The High Heat]

There's always the 'Wookie Defense.'

[bjorn_skurj]

I'll just go with the Braless Kristy McNichol defense, I reckon.

[Sweet Papa Crimbo]

This should be a matter of concern. Some of you don't trust the government in its attempts to protect you from Terrorism. This has such a greater possiblity of abuse that it is really scary. At the very least there should be some discussions of the ethics of the issue.

 

With the dramatic growth in research and knowledge of the human genome, it won't be too very long (if not already being done) that people are chosing to abort fetuses that have certain genetic markers. Now, while this sounds perfectly reasonable when considering severe health issue, what if the someone choses to abort a fetus because it has the gene markings for obesity? Homosexuality? Left handedness?

 

In China, there are reports (don't know if they are verifiable or anecdotal) of parents chosing to abort female fetuses because of the one child policy.

 

It may be a brave new world, but it very often scares the shit out of me.

[JohnO]

Where did I say to forget bioethics? Could you please articulate your concerns?

You didn't say it, I wrote it. The concern is that the state should have any right or interest in an individuals dna without due cause or their explicit consent is simply un-American.

[Guest Speed Racer]

I think it's simplistic to think that the law won't evolve with the science. Right now we haven't actually discovered any genetic links to obesity, homosexuality, left-handedness or other characteristics that aren't life-threatening, and until we do, I think we're jumping the gun to a) assume that people will abort fetuses for these reasons and b ) that doing so will be considered lawful. In any event, I find it very hard to believe that there will be some large-scale abortion of potentially homosexual fetuses.

 

Additionally, you're also operating under the assumption that the State, when collecting the data, will inform the parents of these discoveries. It's quite possible that few people will pay to have genetic testing results disclosed to them.

[Sweet Papa Crimbo]

You didn't say it, I wrote it. The concern is that the state should have any right or interest in an individuals dna without due cause or their explicit consent is simply un-American.

 

People don't want the government to know what movies they rent or what books they check out of the library, but there is no outcry about this?

[Guest Speed Racer]

You didn't say it, I wrote it. The concern is that the state should have any right or interest in an individuals dna without due cause or their explicit consent is simply un-American.

 

Before long, I'm sure states will have to obtain explicit consent. I still think that if the only thing the state is doing is collecting data, there really is no harm to the child or the family. We are what we are; having the state know that won't really change anything - the Constitution does protect us to that extent.

[bobbob1313]

People don't want the government to know what movies they rent or what books they check out of the library, but there is no outcry about this?

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the information isn't being linked, is it? It's just collected, but not identified?

[Guest Speed Racer]

It is being identified - the pediatrician knows that the daughter's DNA puts her at risk for cystic fibrosis, after all - but the article doesn't say who has access to the complete databse. The article does say that researchers who would like access to the DNA database (the people at the University of Minnesota, for instance) receive a list that does not link the DNA to names.

[Sweet Papa Crimbo]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the information isn't being linked, is it? It's just collected, but not identified?

 

Probably just paranoia rearing its ugly head. I surely hope its all innocent. But the Big Guys do have a bit of a history of misusing power with respect to medical issues (ancient history...but Tuskogee is still within the memory of some folks).

[u2roolz]

Not to get all Aeon Flux here, but if there were to be a great epidemic would it be unethical to use this DNA to make clones of those who died?

Or if your child dies, will certain parents ask to use the DNA to create a clone?

It certainly opens up a lot of doors to this.

 

At present writing I sit on the side of it being unethical, but I haven't been in either scenario above or something similar.

 

But yeah, that definitely doesn't sit right that the government has the rights (?) to your child's DNA?!