States Store Babies' DNA?

[Ash]

A friend of mine posted this on facebook after finding out about it when she had her baby. It's definitely an interesting read. I know we've got people in the medical field here who could maybe give more insight than the article does, but... Well... illowfight: Have at it.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/02/04/baby.dna.government/index.html?hpt=C1

 

[Riven]

I think it's funny how people are saying it could affect their children getting a job or getting insurance... well if a person carries a disease it is by law supposed to be disclosed to your insurance otherwise they can deny all the claims related to that anyway.

And they don't go around telling everyone either, I know people who's kids are carriers for things and they just keep breeding and having them, not testing them for it or anything, not caring that their kids have a 1/12 chance of marrying someone who also carries it and having kids with cf, because they're morons who don't care, and they didn't even find out that she was carrying it until their fourth baby was hospitalized for being really sick.

 

[Rebecca]

I think it's funny how people are saying it could affect their children getting a job or getting insurance... well if a person carries a disease it is by law supposed to be disclosed to your insurance otherwise they can deny all the claims related to that anyway.

The issue is with carriers, though. Some people have a genetic predisposition to health complications that can appear later in life. The fear is that companies will not want to spend the time/money/effort training someone who is more likely to have to leave their post prematurely than an average worker.

 

[tunes]

The issue is with carriers, though. Some people have a genetic predisposition to health complications that can appear later in life. The fear is that companies will not want to spend the time/money/effort training someone who is more likely to have to leave their post prematurely than an average worker.

Wow, the ACLU will be rubbing their hands together on that one. They generally call that descrimination.

Not wanting to hire and train someone because they "might" develop a disease somewhere down the road is definitely a violation of that person's rights. All of these things are mights and maybes. They aren't proof that you will develop any given disease, just that it's possible. It's possible that every single person on the planet will develop cancer, but that isn't a reason not to employ them.

I'm okay with testing at birth. I am not okay with storing of the DNA. They need to make the public aware, each and every time they test a child, then give them the option of destroying the DNA sample.

 

[Rickman]

Sounds more and more like "Big Brother" sneaking in the back door, with gym shoes on!!

 

[Brittany_Lynn]

I think that having the DNA on hand in case of missing children is a great reason to store it long term--but like the article said, it should only have the name attached if the government has the DNA stored somewhere, NOT if they're doing testing or something.

Isn't there a test to find out if you have a genetic pre-disposition for being homosexual? That's what came to my mind when the woman in the article said that her child's DNA could cost her a job. Obviously that's discrimination, but it doesn't stop it from happening.