The Bill Nobody Noticed: National DNA Databank

[windcatcher]

Do you think it is the government right to 'own' your genetic identity material from birth?
STORY FOUND HERE

S.1858, known as The Newborn Screening Saves Lives Act of 2007, is justified as a "national contingency plan" in that it represents preparation for any sort of public health emergency. The bill states that the federal government should "continue to carry out, coordinate, and expand research in newborn screening" and "maintain a central clearinghouse of current information on newborn screening... ensuring that the clearinghouse is available on the Internet and is updated at least quarterly". Sections of the bill also make it clear that DNA may be used in genetic experiments and tests. Read the full bill: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xp...

Twila Brase, president of the Citizens' Council on Health Care warns that this new law represents the beginning of nationwide genetic testing. Brase states that S.1858 and H.R. 3825, the House version of the bill, will:
• Establish a national list of genetic conditions for which newborns and children are to be tested.
• Establish protocols for the linking and sharing of genetic test results nationwide.
• Build surveillance systems for tracking the health status and health outcomes of individuals diagnosed at birth with a genetic defect or trait.
• Use the newborn screening program as an opportunity for government agencies to identify, list, and study "secondary conditions" of individuals and their families.
• Subject citizens to genetic research without their knowledge or consent.
Read her entire analysis of the implications of this bill here: http://www.cchconline.org/pdf/S_1858_NB...

 

[Salty]

Is there a difference from taking DNA and footprints (at least they used to do that)

Anyways, there are many advantages to taking DNA, but on the other hand there are many disadvantages. Hmm, does, should one outweigh the other?

 

[windcatcher]

Is there a difference from taking DNA and footprints (at least they used to do that)

Anyways, there are many advantages to taking DNA, but on the other hand there are many disadvantages. Hmm, does, should one outweigh the other?

I have no difficulty in accepting DNA evidence for the purpose of criminal prosecution to clear or indict an alleged suspect.

Voluntary DNA samples given with the informed consent for study of persons participating in an identity data base is one thing. But legalizing the institution of collecting and identifying DNA for additional collection of data, concerns me that it is a system that could easily be misused or abused. I really don't know and would be interested in hearing what others think, know, or just have an opinion on.

 

[Don]

Is there a difference from taking DNA and footprints (at least they used to do that)

Anyways, there are many advantages to taking DNA, but on the other hand there are many disadvantages. Hmm, does, should one outweigh the other?

You mean the footprints of newborns? Interesting question....

 

[Allan]

I remember when my third child was born (about 4 years ago), the Dr. clamped the umbilical cord in two spots so as to cut it.. typical. However as I cut the cord I noticed he gave a slight nod to one of the nurses who then left the room. I followed the other nurses tender to the newly delivered baby as they carried our child over the incubator because she was somewhat blue but something seemed.. I don't know.. fishy about what the doc was doing. I watched back and forth from child, to mother, to him, as he was removing the placenta (sp?) but then he did something strange. He pulled the cord up to it's closest end toward the placenta, clamped it and then cut it off. At this time the nurse who left the room came back into the room with a bucket of ice where the doctor then layed the umbilical cord on it and the nurse turned and left immediately. This took about a few minutes but I was still focused on our child that was coming back to a nice shade of pink. After the doctor sticched her up he then left and nurses were in clean up mode. After a little bit the doctor came back to check on my wife give us the good report that our daughter was healthy and fussy I then asked the doctor about what I saw and he gave me a strange look. He then told me that no such happened. He said that after the cord was cut, he placed the placenta and remaining cord in the hazardous disposal bag as is procedure. The second time I told him I went into much more detail about what I saw, and smiled and said that I must have not gotten a clear view of all they were doing and it just 'seemed' that this is what I saw. I let it go for the time being figuring I would go talk to some of the nurses and see if I could find the nurse with the bucket of ice who came in and took the cord out. Every nurse I spoke with clammed up when I asked about the removal of the U Cord and stated that they were busy with their tasks to pay much attention to what the doctor might have told another to do. Also, the nurse with the bucket never came back on shift up there that night even though she was only one shift for 2 hours before my wife gave birth. (could have a bben a good and valid reason for it but does it not seem a bit fishy?)

I'm only telling this story because I honestly believe it was being done even without legislation.

The hospital was in North Carolina that is taylor made for pregnancies and delivery of badies. I'll have to ask my wife about the name specific name of the hopital and town it is located in.

 

[windcatcher]

I remember when my third child was born (about 4 years ago), the Dr. clamped the umbilical cord in two spots so as to cut it.. typical. However as I cut the cord I noticed he gave a slight nod to one of the nurses who then left the room. I followed the other nurses tender to the newly delivered baby as they carried our child over the incubator because she was somewhat blue but something seemed.. I don't know.. fishy about what the doc was doing. I watched back and forth from child, to mother, to him, as he was removing the placenta (sp?) but then he did something strange. He pulled the cord up to it's closest end toward the placenta, clamped it and then cut it off. At this time the nurse who left the room came back into the room with a bucket of ice where the doctor then layed the umbilical cord on it and the nurse turned and left immediately. This took about a few minutes but I was still focused on our child that was coming back to a nice shade of pink. After the doctor sticched her up he then left and nurses were in clean up mode. After a little bit the doctor came back to check on my wife give us the good report that our daughter was healthy and fussy I then asked the doctor about what I saw and he gave me a strange look. He then told me that no such happened. He said that after the cord was cut, he placed the placenta and remaining cord in the hazardous disposal bag as is procedure. The second time I told him I went into much more detail about what I saw, and smiled and said that I must have not gotten a clear view of all they were doing and it just 'seemed' that this is what I saw. I let it go for the time being figuring I would go talk to some of the nurses and see if I could find the nurse with the bucket of ice who came in and took the cord out. Every nurse I spoke with clammed up when I asked about the removal of the U Cord and stated that they were busy with their tasks to pay much attention to what the doctor might have told another to do. Also, the nurse with the bucket never came back on shift up there that night even though she was only one shift for 2 hours before my wife gave birth. (could have a bben a good and valid reason for it but does it not seem a bit fishy?)

I'm only telling this story because I honestly believe it was being done even without legislation.

The hospital was in North Carolina that is taylor made for pregnancies and delivery of badies. I'll have to ask my wife about the name specific name of the hopital and town it is located in.

They wont tell you this, but there are a number of products which are made from the afterbirth tissues. Stem cells and cord blood may be used. Chances are, unless that 'nurse' was active in the delivery, or introduced to you or identified as a nurse, she was more likely a laboratory technician. Pharmaceutical companies pay for these products. But chances are it was not DNA collecting, unless NC state has already inacted something in its legislature....... or the hospital in which your baby was delivered was afiliated with one of the large universities there or participating in a research program.

 

[Allan]

They wont tell you this, but there are a number of products which are made from the afterbirth tissues. Stem cells and cord blood may be used. Chances are, unless that 'nurse' was active in the delivery, or introduced to you or identified as a nurse, she was more likely a laboratory technician. Pharmaceutical companies pay for these products. But chances are it was not DNA collecting, unless NC state has already inacted something in its legislature....... or the hospital in which your baby was delivered was afiliated with one of the large universities there or participating in a research program.

Agreed, my point was that they are doing what they want already in various places 'without' legislation because no one knows what goes on behind the scenes, nor do most think to even ask. Regarding my situation, the cord could have been taken for practically anything under the sun, which 'could' include DNA (they only need a small amount) - but I am not stating that this is what it was specifically for. However there are various situations where DNA can be taken and perserved in large amounts, ranging from blood tests, tissue samples from orthoscopy, Umbilical cords, ect..

I also understand the pharmaceutical companies pay for these things but the hospital does not have to lie about taking them. That was my issue there.

 

[windcatcher]

Agreed, my point was that they are doing what they want already in various places 'without' legislation because no one knows what goes on behind the scenes, nor do most think to even ask. Regarding my situation, the cord could have been taken for practically anything under the sun, which 'could' include DNA (they only need a small amount) - but I am not stating that this is what it was specifically for. However there are various situations where DNA can be taken and perserved in large amounts, ranging from blood tests, tissue samples from orthoscopy, Umbilical cords, ect..

I also understand the pharmaceutical companies pay for these things but the hospital does not have to lie about taking them. That was my issue there.

Stem cells can also be 'harvested' from cord blood.

I agree with you, Allan. I don't understand why the doctor could not have been candid with you: I hate to say this...... but I have a problem with anyone who is unwilling to honestly answer my question when my question is already based upon an observation of fact. Yours was such an observation: You saw them preserve tissue on ice which is not an apparent disposal process and you had questions: Even if their only reason was to draw off the cord blood and blood type your baby, and then dispose of the tissues, the doctor could have been honest and acknowledged what you saw and given you some reason for its purpose. Just because people have professions with license and specialized knowledge doesn't mean they have a right to keep secrets: There is nothing 'proprietary' about medical information or scientific or beneficial purposes...... but there is something very suspicious (if nothing more than elitist) about the attitude that certain information is above the average persons' understanding to admit or disclose.

I have never seen the facts or data on this, but I've heard...... meaning radio or other sources.... which may or may not be credible, that after birth tissues are worth about $30 USD per placenta or more...... which means the hospital or the doctor is getting that amount. In reality, they are set up to handle 'body fluids and tissues' so it is understandable that they do 'the marketing' of such....... and the only choice for them is between that or disposal as tissue waste. It does cross my mind that some parents might question why they weren't recompensed for the tissues, or some might insist that they be informed and sign a release for the tissues to be used as deemed fit. Perhapse the doctor was trying to avoid such issues by totally denying even that which you saw take place. Though it seems like a small thing, no doubt eventually someone would come along and make an issue of the recompense to the mother for the products of child birth, or take some issue with the use of tissues for medical or cosmetic purposes on grounds of 'religious beliefs'. Still, for a doctor to have my trust means I expect candid answers to my questions.