• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should the government store DNA of law abiding citizens?

Should the government store DNA of law abiding citizens?


  • Total voters
    26

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
36,705
Reaction score
17,867
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Should the government store DNA of law abiding citizens?



The government has your baby's DNA - CNN.com
(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.
 
Why should the government have this? They can kindly keep their noses out of my personal business AND out of my DNA.

If there are medical tests to be performed to help determine genetic diseases, then I should request testing for that. I don't believe it should be something that is mandated by the government.
 
Should the government store DNA of law abiding citizens?



The government has your baby's DNA - CNN.com
(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.

OH NO THEY'RE GOING TO USE THEIR EVIL GOVERNMENTAL POWERS TO BRAIN WASH OUR CHILDREN BECAUSE THEY HAVE THEIR DNA!!! :roll:
 
OH NO THEY'RE GOING TO USE THEIR EVIL GOVERNMENTAL POWERS TO BRAIN WASH OUR CHILDREN BECAUSE THEY HAVE THEIR DNA!!! :roll:

The funny thing about giving people an an inch is that they always want to take a mile. Today its DNA and cameras in public tomorrow it could be something alot worse because people like you sit there and say its only this or only that its not like this could lead to some bigger invasion of privacy.
 
The funny thing about giving people an an inch is that they always want to take a mile. Today its DNA and cameras in public tomorrow it could be something alot worse because people like you sit there and say its only this or only that its not like this could lead to some bigger invasion of privacy.

And then there are people like you who are willing to completely ban something like this because of the absolute extremes it can go to.
 
Why the **** not?

Why is it the business the servants of the people to have this kind of information.Last I checked we are citizens,therefore that means the government is supposed to be our bitch not the other way around.
 
Why is it the business the servants of the people to have this kind of information.Last I checked we are citizens,therefore that means the government is supposed to be our bitch not the other way around.

Because the last time I checked, we don't and cannot have a private company which can take over these responsibilities because they would definitely abuse their powers. And I'd very much like having DNA storage of people for treating illness, and I'd really prefer the government having this over a private corporation.
 
Because the last time I checked, we don't and cannot have a private company which can take over these responsibilities because they would definitely abuse their powers.

Who says its a private companies to store our DNA?That kind of information should not be the business of the government and private companies.

And I'd very much like having DNA storage of people for treating illness,

Then you can volunteer. I do not want the government forcing or coercing people for their DNA.

and I'd really prefer the government having this over a private corporation.

I would rather than none of them have this information and if they want this information it should be voluntary.
 
And then there are people like you who are willing to completely ban something like this because of the absolute extremes it can go to.
What do they need it for?
 
Who says its a private companies to store our DNA?That kind of information should not be the business of the government and private companies.

Then you can volunteer. I do not want the government forcing or coercing people for their DNA.

I would rather than none of them have this information and if they want this information it should be voluntary.

So you are saying we do not in fact need to have some group aware of genetic diseases that might kill you, or a loved one?

If you do want someone to have the ability to countermand those diseases by diagnosing them (at least) then the government has to do it. But you have a point, it might be better to make it voluntary. But, when the people who didn't want it start dying of heart disease, or whatever, they can't complain. Sound fair to you?
 
So you are saying we do not in fact need to have some group aware of genetic diseases that might kill you, or a loved one?

Why does that dna need to stored after the diagnosis has been made. Why not first seek permission(not forced or coerced permission) from the parents to test their child for cystic fibrosis,if they say yes test the child and if the results come back positive give the parents an officially stamped document with the results and dispose of the DNA?


tell the parents saying hey your kid is genetically prone to cystic fibrosis, hand them an officially stamped document and dump the DNA from storage

But you have a point, it might be better to make it voluntary.

You seem to completely trust the government, I do not. When you give some people an inch they will try to take a mile.The government may decide that they do not want just a DNA database of people with specific genetic diseases, they may want a database of everyone for other purposes.They may go for something more than just DNA.

But, when the people who didn't want it start dying of heart disease, or whatever, they can't complain. Sound fair to you?
Will my dna some how change if they do not have it on record?
 
Why should the government have this? They can kindly keep their noses out of my personal business AND out of my DNA.

If there are medical tests to be performed to help determine genetic diseases, then I should request testing for that. I don't believe it should be something that is mandated by the government.
i don't have a problem with the screening they do on newborns, but the sample should be destroyed.
 
Because the last time I checked, we don't and cannot have a private company which can take over these responsibilities because they would definitely abuse their powers. And I'd very much like having DNA storage of people for treating illness, and I'd really prefer the government having this over a private corporation.
hell no.

dna does not need to be stored to treat illness.
 
Hospitals should screen for it, and then dump the data. Not the government. If it is something a hospital wouldn't do, because it is cost prohibitive, then government shouldn't do it either. Thats why we have our massive debt. The government pays for things that lose money over time.
 
Couldn't it be useful for catching criminals? Because if you know the DNA of everyone in the US, then you are more likely to solve crime.
 
Should the government store DNA of law abiding citizens?



The government has your baby's DNA - CNN.com
(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.

Ok, so I'm supposed to demonstrate a need in order to carry, in some states, but the governement doesn't have to demonstrate a need to store my DNA.

Am I the only one who thinks that's upside down?
 
Because the last time I checked, we don't and cannot have a private company which can take over these responsibilities because they would definitely abuse their powers. And I'd very much like having DNA storage of people for treating illness, and I'd really prefer the government having this over a private corporation.


You're kidding.

Why not send your complete medical history to the government and those medical histories of your family members to them as well.

I don't think it's a question of what *could* happen, it's the fact that they have no business in it. Period.
 
Preventing, and treating genetic diseases.

Are you try to say that the government is using MY DNA in labratory experiments, without MY permission? :shock:
 
Couldn't it be useful for catching criminals? Because if you know the DNA of everyone in the US, then you are more likely to solve crime.

Or :shock: plant the evidence to convict of a crime. If they have probable cause, let them get the warrent for testing.... just like the constitution states.
 
Last edited:
Not without my consent, unless there are no names attached to it.
 
Back
Top Bottom