Should the Government (State or Federal) be able to take and store DNA samples of newborns?

about how specimens are processed through the lab. The way you describe it makes it seem less likely that the blood would be used for purposes other than tests related to the health of the child they came from.

The way the original question is posed, it seems like the "tests" in question are tests related to general research. I agree with you though, I don't think that parents should have to consent to standard newborn testing and screenings. The only thing I was asked to sign a consent for in regards to my baby when she was born was for a hepatitis vaccine. Otherwise, all the standard testing, such as hearing screens, was explained to me, but there was no red tape around it. I think that is fine.

I was prompted to actually click on the links provided by Fanaile Essence because of your post. In the link:

NEWBORN GENETIC SCREENING - The New Eugenics? The Case for Informed Consent Requirements for Genetic Testing, Baby DNA Storage and Genetic Research

"Advocates of a broadened notion of ‘benefit’ often extol the utility of newborn screening for helping parents make future reproductive decisions...But this notion of ‘benefit to the family’ is not unproblematic...Suppose that expanded screening of an infant reveals not a fatal and incurable disease but instead a host of genetic variants, each of which merely confers elevated risk for some condition or other. Who is to say at what point an uncovered defect becomes serious enough to warrant preventing the birth of other children who might carry it? At what point have we crossed the line from legitimate family planning to capricious and morally dubious eugenics?”

This argument makes me question the importance, validity, and ethics of antepartum testing. Amniocentesis is often performed and is encouraged in most pregnant over 35 years old, and the argument for it is that disorders such as Down's Syndrome are more prevalent in children born to older mothers.

I had all kinds of tests done, but mostly via ultrasound and MRI which told me that my daughter would be born deformed with hydrocephaly. She was born perfectly fine. Early on I had opted out on routine AFP blood tests because I was overwhelmed with the information doctors were giving me about the probabilities of disease in my child. What is especially frustrating about AFP testing is that false positives are close to 50%.

"The controversy in these tests lies in many places. One of which is the accuracy of the screenings. While some claim that they have only a 5% "false positive" rate, most research finds that there are 80+% rate of positive tests while the baby is unaffected. The false positive rates depend on many factors, including appropriate gestational age, maternal age, weight and the presence of diabetes.

False positives may not seem like a problem, however, there are follow up tests that are done that do carry risks, like amniocentesis or chorionic villus sampling (CVS), which does carry a 1 - 2% rate of fetal loss. The standard is usually to repeat the AFP or triple screen. Another positive screen will then go to the Level II Ultrasound. Ultrasound can even be used to detect some of the anomalies associated with Downs Syndrome. If the ultrasound doesn't find a mix up in gestational age, or a multiple pregnancy, an amniocentesis is generally the next step. "
http://pregnancy.about.com/cs/afp/a/afptesting.htm

I went straight to the Level II ultrasound because they were so sure there would be a heart defect due to my aspirin use. Even with that technology, the results of testing were false.

I have since heard several people share about instances similar to mine, or even less indicative of mine where the mother decided to terminate pregnancy.

I am far less concerned with the issue of eugenics as a result of newborn screens than I am with the issue of eugenics based on ante partum testing.

The link Governor asked to shut down DNA warehousing: Legislature's plan to legalize agency's action vetoed @ http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83253 states:

"The issue is the collection and storage by state officials of blood samples and DNA information that first is used for screening against a number of diseases but available later for research."

So basically, collection and testing of blood that is used for the benefit of the host donor are perfectly appropriate, but after that, I feel the tissue should be discarded.

If you like this post, please tip me. All tips will be forwarded to ProgressiveU.org. Keep the site alive!

That is so true. But in fact, DNA does say much more about you then fingerprints. Fingerprints don't define your personality or color of your eyes do they? I don't think that they do. Plus, you can always wear gloves/shoes. I would think it is difficult to make sure no cell with your DNA falls anywhere you do not want it to.
It is, however, very good to note that there are no questions asked when it comes to taking finger prints or footprints.

This may sound off-topic, but I recently got in an argument with my boss over having cameras (for security) on the public city streets (which they do in many places of Chicago). Because we worked for a security company, this was a good thing to think about. My conclusion was that I don't mind if someone can see me, if I can see them. Basically, politicians/government can film me on public streets all they want, but if they are a public servant, then the people should be able to watch their every move. But of course someone can trick me into thinking I am getting the right information so that I consent to giving them my info.
I don't mind scientist accessing my DNA for health reasons, but I feel that they should definitely ask consent when it comes to storing your DNA on file. And nobody should be forced to give their DNA, unless you are a murderer/serious criminal.

Any good scientist knows that both nature and nurture are important for the development of an individual. All four of my grandparents have diabetes... that makes me extremely likely to develop the disease as well. But, that doesn't make it a guarantee. If I take care of myself, and maintain a healthy weight and diet, the chances of me actually getting diabetes are much slimmer.

~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!