Posted on 12/22/2009 2:26:10 PM PST by a fool in paradise
The state will destroy blood samples legally collected from newborns, but kept without parental consent under a federal lawsuit settlement announced today.
There were between 4 million and 4.5 million specimens stored between 2002 and this year at Texas A&M University by the Texas Department of Health, said lawyer Jim Harrington of the Texas Civil Rights Project, which sued over the practice on behalf of parents in federal district court in San Antonio.
The number of newborns involved was unclear, because there could be multiple samples from each...
“There's no financial gain for any of the plaintiffs,” Beleno said. “Basically, what we wanted to do was to make sure that our children's privacy was being protected and that the state is respecting our rights, because if we don't stand up and make the government do that, nobody's going to do it for us...”
“The Texas A&M Health Science Center is glad that we have reached agreement in order to settle the lawsuit. We are saddened however, that a superb database has been lost. This database could have continued to shed light on causes of congenital birth defects and potentially led to preventive measures saving thousands of infants and their families the distress these defects cause,” Dickey's office said in a statement...
The blood is collected from newborns because the law requires such screening for disorders or illness. The parents' lawsuit, however, said there was no legal authority to keep the blood indefinitely without consent.
...In addition, the agency must inform the parents who sued how their children's blood was used and any financial transactions involving the specimens, Harrington said...
(Excerpt) Read more at chron.com ...
You shouldn’t have to opt out. You should have to opt in.
Same with the “Do not call” registry or paying for Viacom channels on digital tv services.
Interesting...I just found out the other day when I went in for some blood tests....they had to ask me if I would allow the “extra” blood to be used for “research”...i.e. cancer, diabetes, etc....evidently it’s always been used in the past, but NOW they have to ask for permission. At the moment, I chose NOT to.....bullheaded mad about health care and all that I am.
We don’t need a DNA database for citizens, good for Texas!
You know something, take the names off of these samples and just give them numbers. These samples are critical for research, tracking literally hundreds of vital medical markers from disease to heavy metals. Can some of these panicky types realize that “Big Brother” doesn’t want your blood (yet)?
Mr Dickey would have fit right in working with the "Third Reich".
So where is the problem with that?
There is still the matter of informed consent. They didn’t ask for consent and they lost.
Retaining the blood for research is not a bad thing... doing it without consent is another... then to add insult to injury keeping the blood sample tied to an ID - the infant’s name is totally wrong... DNA databases of innocent children can and will be misused - it would be only a matter of time...
One doesn’t have to know the blood owners name to derive medical research benefits ... so all the posturing is just baloney.
Once it is determined that the infant does not have an immediately identifiable disease - which should come about in a few days or a few weeks - then that sample should be destroyed.
Bottom line the eventual hopes of some bureaucrats was a criminal DNA database ... Out of millions born some would eventually become violent criminals - then BINGO out of a database of millions of innocents pops a few criminals....
So easy and soooooo wrong..
The problem is that they stick the remaining blood in a freezer for some unspecified future testing and link it back to the name of the newborn. It has the potential to be used to limit healthcare to people who carry genetic diseases or have a genetic makeup that makes them suceptable to diseases or disorders. A potential goldmine of information exists for someone in business or the government to use. The reason the parents can’t give consent to store it is that the future use must be specified exactly. It could be held if de-identified, but it then loses much of the value because it can’t be linked to specific people and families who may have inherited conditions.
Imagine how much more thorough Hitler could have been if he had a DNA database.
Now imagine it with our modern tracking technology.
I wish I believed it couldn’t happen again.
They want to do longitudinal studies, therefore the numbers cannot remain anonymous.
%$#! I can’t believe this was going on in TX. Who is responsible?
But the blood? Isn't there always a need for blood donations around the holidays?
Cheers!
It's "for your own good" (and sometimes the financial benefit of someone else).
You need a blood test to get married as well. Should that go into a permanent record that is checked against other things for future research as well without consent?
Think they took a quart of blood from these newborns?
It may already be so, I wouldn't know.
Should there be a source of information on who is an AIDS carrier?
in the 1960s, STDs were tracked and lists of sexual contacts were provided to doctors (if you tested positive, your doctor would ask who else you may have infected so they could be notified).
AIDS is a politically correct disease. Don’t think they have held that same process for it or any STD now.
Blame the CDC.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.