1. Welcome to the Solo-Ops Military Wives Survival Forums forums.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Gov't has your baby's DNA

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    3,867
    My Mood
    Goofy
    Rep Power
    72

    Gov't has your baby's DNA

    http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/02/04...ex.html?hpt=C2


    The government has your baby's DNA
    By Elizabeth Cohen, CNN Senior Medical Correspondent
    February 4, 2010 9:11 a.m. EST


    Anne Brown worries that someone could gain access to the DNA sample from her daughter Isabel with Isabel's name attached.

    (CNN) -- When Annie Brown's daughter, Isabel, was a month old, her pediatrician asked Brown and her husband to sit down because he had some bad news to tell them: Isabel carried a gene that put her at risk for cystic fibrosis.
    While grateful to have the information -- Isabel received further testing and she doesn't have the disease -- the Mankato, Minnesota, couple wondered how the doctor knew about Isabel's genes in the first place. After all, they'd never consented to genetic testing.
    It's simple, the pediatrician answered: Newborn babies in the United States are routinely screened for a panel of genetic diseases. Since the testing is mandated by the government, it's often done without the parents' consent, according to Brad Therrell, director of the National Newborn Screening & Genetics Resource Center.
    In many states, such as Florida, where Isabel was born, babies' DNA is stored indefinitely, according to the resource center.
    Many parents don't realize their baby's DNA is being stored in a government lab, but sometimes when they find out, as the Browns did, they take action. Parents in Texas, and Minnesota have filed lawsuits, and these parents' concerns are sparking a new debate about whether it's appropriate for a baby's genetic blueprint to be in the government's possession.
    "We were appalled when we found out," says Brown, who's a registered nurse. "Why do they need to store my baby's DNA indefinitely? Something on there could affect her ability to get a job later on, or get health insurance."
    According to the state of Minnesota's Web site, samples are kept so that tests can be repeated, if necessary, and in case the DNA is ever need to help parents identify a missing or deceased child. The samples are also used for medical research.
    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.
    However, he added that storage of DNA for long periods of time is a different matter.
    "I don't see any reason to do that kind of storage," Caplan says. "If it's anonymous, then I don't care. I don't have an issue with that. But if you keep names attached to those samples, that makes me nervous."
    DNA given to outside researchers
    Genetic testing for newborns started in the 1960s with testing for diseases and conditions that, if undetected, could kill a child or cause severe problems, such as mental retardation. Since then, the screening has helped save countless newborns.
    Over the years, many other tests were added to the list. Now, states mandate that newborns be tested for anywhere between 28 and 54 different conditions, and the DNA samples are stored in state labs for anywhere from three months to indefinitely, depending on the state. (To find out how long your baby's DNA is stored, see this state-by-state list.)
    Brad Therrell, who runs the federally funded genetic resource consortium, says parents don't need to worry about the privacy of their babies' DNA.
    "The states have in place very rigid controls on those specimens," Therrell says. "If my children's DNA were in one of these state labs, I wouldn't be worried a bit."
    The specimens don't always stay in the state labs. They're often given to outside researchers -- sometimes with the baby's name attached.
    According to a study done by the state of Minnesota, more than 20 scientific papers have been published in the United States since 2000 using newborn blood samples.
    The researchers do not have to have parental consent to obtain samples as long as the baby's name is not attached, according to Amy Gaviglio, one of the authors of the Minnesota report. However, she says it's her understanding that if a researcher wants a sample with a baby's name attached, consent first must be obtained from the parents.
    More Empowered Patient news and advice
    Scientists have heralded this enormous collection of DNA samples as a "gold mine" for doing research, according to Gaviglio.
    "This sample population would be virtually impossible to get otherwise," says Gaviglio, a genetic counselor for the Minnesota Department of Health. "Researchers go through a very stringent process to obtain the samples. States certainly don't provide samples to just anyone."
    Brown says that even with these assurances, she still worries whether someone could gain access to her baby's DNA sample with Isabel's name attached.
    "I know the government says my baby's data will be kept private, but I'm not so sure. I feel like my trust has been taken," she says.
    Parents don't give consent to screening
    Brown says she first lost trust when she learned that Isabel had received genetic testing in the first place without consent from her or her husband.
    "I don't have a problem with the testing, but I wish they'd asked us first," she says.
    Since health insurance paid for Isabel's genetic screening, her positive test for a cystic fibrosis gene is now on the record with her insurance company, and the Browns are concerned this could hurt her in the future.
    "It's really a black mark against her, and there's nothing we can do to get it off there," Brown says. "And let's say in the future they can test for a gene for schizophrenia or manic-depression and your baby tests positive -- that would be on there, too."
    Brown says if the hospital had first asked her permission to test Isabel, now 10 months old, she might have chosen to pay for it out of pocket so the results wouldn't be known to the insurance company.
    Caplan says taking DNA samples without asking permission and then storing them "veers from the norm."
    "In the military, for instance, they take and store DNA samples, but they tell you they're doing it, and you can choose not to join if you don't like it," he says.
    What can parents do
    In some states, including Minnesota and Texas, the states are required to destroy a baby's DNA sample if a parent requests it. Parents who want their baby's DNA destroyed are asked to fill out this form in Minnesota and this form in Texas.
    Parents in other states have less recourse, says Therrell, who runs the genetic testing group. "You'd probably have to write a letter to the state saying, 'Please destroy my sample,'" he says.
    He adds, however, that it's not clear whether a state would necessarily obey your wishes. "I suspect it would be very difficult to get those states to destroy your baby's sample," he says.
    CNN's John Bonifield and Jennifer Bixler contributed to this report
    ~Stacey~


    Grayson ~ 11.7.07
    Jackson ~ 3.2.10

  2. #2
    Aleah's Avatar
    Aleah is offline So. Did anyone ever give Sean Paul the light? Solo-Diva Aleah has a spectacular aura about

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    2,227
    My Mood
    Breezy
    Rep Power
    40
    WTH...

    I just reposted this on my FB. I wonder if IL has a way to opt-out...if I want my kid tested for something, I'll ask for it.
    Last edited by Aleah; 02-04-2010 at 04:11 PM.
    It is how we treat the humblest and most powerless among us that determines the fate of our souls.
    Coming soon: lifebeingblonde.com (still tweaking)

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    423
    My Mood
    Angry
    Rep Power
    0
    That is a compleate invasion of your rights as a parent. Is this even am law or is it just something that they do? I would not want my DNA taken with out consent, I sertantly don't want my childs DNA taken and test, or handed out to somebody else to be tested. They can affect the childs life by saying that they tested positive for something that they don't even have. I don't have children yet and this just makes me sick whaT SOME PEOPLE WOULD DO FOR SCIENCE.
    Ericka
    Lola our golden retriever

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    3,867
    My Mood
    Goofy
    Rep Power
    72
    Quote Originally Posted by Ericka2009army View Post
    Is this even am law or is it just something that they do?
    According to the article:
    Since the testing is mandated by the government, it's often done without the parents' consent, according to Brad Therrell, director of the National Newborn Screening & Genetics Resource Center.

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,102
    Rep Power
    0
    Sounds like GATTICA to me.
    Kerri (32), proud SAHM to Gavin (3 years!).


  6. Hmmmmmm......is that what they offer in that pre-screening thing? I know DH and I have been offered to get tested for like 3 common genetic disorders. We could consent or not. Or is it something totally different? Sorry its late and I'm beat....
    ~*Ashlee and Dennis 01/02/2009*~

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,102
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by ashlee1006 View Post
    Hmmmmmm......is that what they offer in that pre-screening thing? I know DH and I have been offered to get tested for like 3 common genetic disorders. We could consent or not. Or is it something totally different? Sorry its late and I'm beat....
    Sounds like it is something completely different. The DNA is taken after birth. I hated that the hospital that I went for my pregnancy pushed and pushed those screenings on me. I was talking to a lady in the waiting room one time and she told me that everyone that had the testing done was told there may be abnormalities so they could scare you into getting more testing done. It was a teaching hospital but that is just over the top!

  8. #8
    Aleah's Avatar
    Aleah is offline So. Did anyone ever give Sean Paul the light? Solo-Diva Aleah has a spectacular aura about

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    2,227
    My Mood
    Breezy
    Rep Power
    40
    True; that is just poopalicious!! Those tests right after birth certainly aren't going to change the outcome; if your child has something, it'll express itself. In the meantime now they have a nice little sample to do with what they will.

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,708
    My Mood
    Buzzed
    Rep Power
    40
    Quote Originally Posted by Kerri View Post
    Sounds like GATTICA to me.
    EXACTLY!! I was trying to remember the name of that movie when I read this.
    ~Juli (StudioCat)

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,708
    My Mood
    Buzzed
    Rep Power
    40
    Since health insurance paid for Isabel's genetic screening, her positive test for a cystic fibrosis gene is now on the record with her insurance company, and the Browns are concerned this could hurt her in the future.
    "It's really a black mark against her, and there's nothing we can do to get it off there," Brown says. "And let's say in the future they can test for a gene for schizophrenia or manic-depression and your baby tests positive -- that would be on there, too."
    Brown says if the hospital had first asked her permission to test Isabel, now 10 months old, she might have chosen to pay for it out of pocket so the results wouldn't be known to the insurance company.
    Aside from the Gattica remark, this is what really, really bothers me here. I've known too many other people who had cancer and other issues that might reoccur-where the insurance would not cover them. that was bad enough that Insurance companies get to pick and choose based on past work ups. But this pretty much establishes out the gate that these children are uninsurable. This information is supposedly being culled in the guise of research and preventative meds--but honestly, it's leading towards something much, much darker.

+ Reply to Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Side Column
Side Column
TESTING
Text
Text
Text