| reply to Steve
Re: The Government Has Your Baby's DNA said by Steve:If the babies haven't done anything wrong, they have nothing to hide. OK, but suppose the baby has a medical condition that will be evident later - if insurance companies get the info, they can deny coverage as soon as possible. |
|
 SteveI know your IP addressConsultant
join:2001-03-10
Yorba Linda, CA
kudos:5 | said by carpetshark3:OK, but suppose the baby has a medical condition that will be evident later - if insurance companies get the info, they can deny coverage as soon as possible. Looks like I shoulda ponied up my two bucks |
|
SUMwarePremium
join:2002-05-21
kudos:2
1 edit | reply to carpetshark3
said by carpetshark3:said by Steve:If the babies haven't done anything wrong, they have nothing to hide. OK, but suppose the baby has a medical condition that will be evident later - if insurance companies get the info, they can deny coverage as soon as possible. That's one of the implications of the article. It presents serious issues. Those who actually read it would know that I've edited the personal story of concerned parents for their child. quote:
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.
"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."
Hardly a laughing matter. |
|
davePremium,MVM
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio
kudos:7 Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| said by SUMware:Hardly a laughing matter. And who's laughing? Let me explain it.
- When faced with any intrusion into privacy, there is some element which will say "what does it matter if you've nothing to hide?". This is perfectly predictable; it happens almost every time.
- But of course, the "nothing to hide" argument is beside the point; the point is the individual right to privacy, full stop.
- Someone might well respond to your OP by writing that "of course, there will doubtless be those who advance the argument that if you've got nothing to hide...". However, one can more succinctly state the same thing in exactly the way that Steve did, confident that the actual meaning should be obvious.
- Alas, as shown, no matter how obvious one's point might be, somewhere there's someone who will misconstrue it. |
|
SUMwarePremium
join:2002-05-21
kudos:2
4 edits | said by dave:said by SUMware:Hardly a laughing matter. And who's laughing? Let me explain it. - Someone might well respond to your OP by writing that "of course, there will doubtless be those who advance the argument that if you've got nothing to hide...". However, one can more succinctly state the same thing in exactly the way that Steve did, confident that the actual meaning should be obvious. - Alas, as shown, no matter how obvious one's point might be, somewhere there's someone who will misconstrue it. BS. Did the parents or child know that the child carried the gene indicating risk of cystic fibrosis (or anything else) prior to testing? If they did would they choose to hide it? How would any of that even be possible? Were they informed that records were maintained and shared? If the the parents or child knew prior to testing would they have agreed to testing? At any time, prior or post testing, were they offered the option of having the test results destroyed to preserve confidentiality? Were they afforded any privacy options? Are the parents now deeply concerned about their baby's future and implications of data sharing (or theft). Some people just seem intentionally blind to the issues. Sometimes real people face real agony and pain and unpleasant circumstance. Perhaps some readers here. Civil sensitivity may be appreciated. |
|
SteveI know your IP addressConsultant
join:2001-03-10
Yorba Linda, CA
kudos:5 | Um, you realize that I'm on the same side as you, right? |
|
|
|
SUMwarePremium
join:2002-05-21
kudos:2
2 edits | Understand. My response was to dave.  The concern is about the parents, their child, testing issues, data security, privacy. Not 'sides'. |
|
SteveI know your IP addressConsultant
join:2001-03-10
Yorba Linda, CA
kudos:5 | said by SUMware:My response was to dave. Um, you realize that dave  is on the same side as you, right? |
|
SUMwarePremium
join:2002-05-21
kudos:2 | Look guys, there's no need for you both to speak for each other.
We've all made our statements clear. Please let's not detract from this topic. |
|
SteveI know your IP addressConsultant
join:2001-03-10
Yorba Linda, CA
kudos:5 | said by SUMware: We've all made our statements clear. No, you really haven't - I have no idea what your beef is. |
|
 StepRCode WarriorPremium
join:2000-11-06
Elgin, IL | reply to carpetshark3
said by carpetshark3:said by Steve:If the babies haven't done anything wrong, they have nothing to hide. OK, but suppose the baby has a medical condition that will be evident later - if insurance companies get the info, they can deny coverage as soon as possible. In theory, GINA, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008, would prevent employers and group plans from considering the information.
»www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/genetic.cfm |
|
 ironwalker World RenownedPremium,MVM
join:2001-08-31
Keansburg, NJ | said by StepR:said by carpetshark3:said by Steve:If the babies haven't done anything wrong, they have nothing to hide. OK, but suppose the baby has a medical condition that will be evident later - if insurance companies get the info, they can deny coverage as soon as possible. In theory, GINA, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008, would prevent employers and group plans from considering the information. » www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/genetic.cfm How would anyone even know they considered the info before acting....they can't.
--
Live Free or Die!
www.sidux.com
www.chronixradio.com
|
|
| reply to Steve
said by Steve:said by SUMware:My response was to dave. Um, you realize that dave is on the same side as you, right? LOL
Where's that sarcasm tag when you need it?
You should have used it here. Could have saved justin a few KBs storage  |
|
| reply to StepR
Yes, in theory......... |
|
quatrixPremium
join:2005-02-11
Davie, FL
kudos:2 | reply to carpetshark3
said by carpetshark3:OK, but suppose the baby has a medical condition that will be evident later - if insurance companies get the info, they can deny coverage as soon as possible. Yeah, we wouldn't want people actually paying for their own problems instead of having them subsidized by the healthy ones. |
|
SUMwarePremium
join:2002-05-21
kudos:2
4 edits | said by quatrix:said by carpetshark3:OK, but suppose the baby has a medical condition that will be evident later - if insurance companies get the info, they can deny coverage as soon as possible. Yeah, we wouldn't want people actually paying for their own problems instead of having them subsidized by the healthy ones. Health insurance, like other forms of insurance, is based upon the principle of "shared risk". If you have medical issues, and carry health insurance, then even healthy people who've never had medical issues help to pay for your treatments. That's what insurance does.
So, by your implication, if it turns out that you test positive for a gene that indicates you most likely will develop terminal serendaciality, the test data should be made available to corporations and the govenment so that the insurance companies could deny you coverage so that you can pay for your own problems. Tough luck. Cause it's your problem and not the problem of us healthy normal folks.
Health insurance like other forms of insurance is a form of collectivism by means of which people collectively pool their risk, in this case the risk of incurring medical expenses. |
|
approval from:
SUMware
| reply to SUMware
Shades of "Gattica" ring forth from this story. Imagine being denied employment 20 years later because of your genetic history... scary. |
|
 ashrc4Premium
join:2009-02-06
australia
1 edit | said by disconnected :
Shades of "Gattica" ring forth from this story. Imagine being denied employment 20 years later because of your genetic history... scary.
It's probably more to do with the job description and the danger/health considerations for the public and colleges.
It was a sad movie but the guy had a terminal disease of some description and NASA probably wouldn't let him become an astronaught even in todays society.
You would at least have 20 years depending on the disease/illness to try and enjoy your life.
--
Paradigm Shift beta test pilot. So far nothing to report.
Now is the not right time to stop folding. |
|
SUMwarePremium
join:2002-05-21
kudos:2
4 edits | reply to disconnected
said by disconnected :
Shades of "Gattica" ring forth from this story. Imagine being denied employment 20 years later because of your genetic history... scary. Agreed. This process is in its early stages now.
Gattaca:
quote:
Gattaca is a 1997 American science fiction drama film written and directed by Andrew Niccol, starring Ethan Hawke, Uma Thurman and Jude Law with supporting roles played by Loren Dean, Ernest Borgnine, Gore Vidal and Alan Arkin. The film was a 1997 nominee for the Academy Award for Best Art Direction — Set Decoration.
The film presents a biopunk vision of a society driven by liberal eugenics. Children of the middle and upper classes are selected through preimplantation genetic diagnosis to ensure they possess the best hereditary traits of their parents. A genetic registry database uses biometrics to instantly identify and classify those so created as valids while those conceived by traditional means are derisively known as in-valids. While genetic discrimination is forbidden by law, in practice it is easy to profile one's genotype resulting in the Valids qualifying for professional employment while the In-Valids who are susceptible to disease are relegated to menial jobs. The movie draws on concerns over reproductive technologies which facilitate eugenics, and the possible consequences of such technological developments for society. It also explores the idea of destiny and the ways in which it can and does govern lives. Characters in Gattaca continually battle both with society and with themselves to find their place in the world and who they are destined to be according to their genes.
The title is based on the initial letters of the four DNA nitrogenous bases (adenine, cytosine, guanine, and thymine). During the credits the letters G, C, T, and A are all highlighted.
|
|
