Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Minnesota DoH has "DNA warehouse"

  1. #1

    Default Minnesota DoH has "DNA warehouse"

    Everyone should e-mail Tim Pawlenty ( tim.pawlenty@state.mn.us ) and tell him that this is an unconstitutional bill that deserves to be vetoed. Our privacy, our children's and grandchildren's privacy should be protected at all costs. This angers me to no end that the Minnesota Department of Health has my children's DNA on file somewhere without my consent. Remember, for those of you that are citizens of other states, if your children were born in Minnesota after July 1, 1997, they have their DNA on file also. - ML

    http://www.startribune.com/opinion/c.../18346699.html

    Genetic information deserves protection
    A proposed law would strip patients of their right to privacy. Pawlenty should veto it.


    By TWILA BRASE

    Last update: April 28, 2008 - 6:40 PM

    State health officials want full access to the DNA of citizens. Their legislation to undo the state's genetic privacy law has already been passed by the Minnesota House and Senate.

    What will Gov. Tim Pawlenty do?

    The 2006 Minnesota Genetic Privacy Law does what all of us want it to do. It requires written informed consent prior to the collection, storage, use, or dissemination of our private genetic information by government and others.

    Specifically, the law states that our genetic information may only be collected and used if we give our written informed consent; it may be stored only for as long as we consent; and it may only be shared with others, including researchers and pharmaceutical companies, with our consent. The consent to allow sharing for specific purposes expires in a year and must be signed and dated.

    This is all good news -- unless Senate File 3138 becomes law.

    This legislation would allow the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) to exempt the collection, storage, use and sharing of newborn DNA from the informed consent requirements of the genetic privacy law. Without informed consent, MDH would be allowed to contract with hospitals statewide to prick the heel of newborns, use and analyze the baby's DNA into adulthood, and give the DNA-filled blood spots to researchers and others.

    If this legislation passes, the informed consent protections of today's genetic privacy law will not protect any baby born after July 1, 1997 -- the day health officials began building a government "DNA warehouse" for the purpose of genetic research. On that day, without legal authority or parent consent, MDH began keeping baby blood and storing it indefinitely.

    Today, according to health officials, the DNA of more than 780,000 children has been filed and claimed as state government property. Their parents have no idea. By the department's own admission, at least 42,210 of these children have been subjects of genetic research, again without parent knowledge or consent. Each year, approximately 73,000 children are born and their blood is added to the state's DNA collection.

    In March 2007, an administrative law judge ruled that the genetic privacy law requires informed consent requirements for the health department's storage, use and sharing of blood collected through the newborn genetic testing program. The commissioner of health appealed the decision and lost. Rather than comply, health officials drafted this year's legislation to exempt all elements of the testing program -- specifically collection, storage, use and dissemination to researchers -- from the genetic privacy law.

    If the bill becomes law, parents will find it difficult to protect their child's genetic privacy. At one of the most vulnerable and exhausting times in life -- the birth of their baby -- they will have to be both knowledgeable and assertive. According to the newborn genetic testing law on the books, parents have the right to object to the taking and storage of blood, but not the right to be fully informed about their right to object. The burden will be on parents to figure it out.

    Senate File 3138 violates parent rights, privacy rights, patient rights and DNA property rights. Citizens young and old have the right to informed consent and genetic privacy. They also have the right to not be research subjects, to not incriminate themselves through their genetic codes, and to be free from involuntary genetic profiling and genetic registration.

    If Pawlenty fails to use his influence or his veto pen to protect the genetic privacy rights of citizens, individual DNA and private genetic codes will become government property. What will the governor do?

    Twila Brase is president of the Citizens' Council on Health Care, which describes its mission as advocating "for patient and physician freedom, medical innovation, and the right of citizens to a confidential patient-doctor relationship."



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Northern Minnesota
    Posts
    2,609

    Default

    What?!? I have no children, but this is still an outrage! What do they possibly hope to accomplish with this kind of nonesense anyway?
    Les Miserables: Do you hear the people sing? Singing the songs of angry men? It is the music of a people who will not be slaves again! When the beating of your heart echoes the beating of the drums, there is a life about to start when tomorrow comes! Will you join in our crusade? Who will be strong and stand by me? Beyond the barricade, is there a world you long to see? Then join in the fight that will give us the right to be free!

  4. #3

    Default

    Just think, they started collecting the DNA data in July of 1997, in 7 years some of those newborns will be adults. Think to the future, EVERY child born in Minnesota after 1997 will have their DNA in a database somewhere controlled by the Government. Talk about registration. This doesn't just include citizens of Minnesota but ALL children born in Minnesota, even those who live in other states but happen to have been born over here. My niece was born in Minnesota but her and her parents lived and still live in Wisconsin, guess what, she's in the database. This pisses me off to no end. Is there any other states that currently do this?
    - ML

  5. #4
    Unapologetic Feminist Nirvikalpa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Dirty Jer-Z
    Posts
    5,159
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    This is bad, this is real bad. Soon enough, watch, the government, the minute your child is born, is going to brand your child 'able to breed' or 'marked for castration.'

    If they can take away your right to your own body, your own privacy, what is stopping them from making the 'cream of the crop' able to mate and those with parents who have diabetes, high blood pressure, cancer, an STD, or people who are even homosexual can't marry and can't mate?

    "If you can't give us good crop, you are worthless." That's the new government slogan.

    You know, my Biology class was talking about this last semester - we were talking about the site 23 and Me which maps out your entire unique genome - and how with it you can trace your chances of getting this disease, and developing this cancer. We were talking about how there's no stopping anyone (esp. the government) from using it against you.

    I can't believe it. And to make matters worse, you know some idiot is going to support it saying "it's for the better of the country." And that one person's voice will be heard, even if they are in the minority - and we will never be heard.

    If you're curious about screenings for newborns, you can see every state's rules about this: http://www.ncsl.org/programs/health/...cs/newborn.htm
    Last edited by Nirvikalpa; 04-29-2008 at 01:25 PM.

    What do you want me to do, to do for you to see you through?
    A box of rain will ease the pain, and love will see you through.
    Box of Rain, Grateful Dead




    Quote Originally Posted by PaulConventionWV
    A real feminist would have avoided men altogether and found a perfectly good female partner. Because, y'know, all sexual intercourse is actually rape.
    निर्विकल्पा

  6. #5

    Default

    It would seem to me that the only solution would be to have the database destroyed asap. M.L., do you live in Minnesota? Anyone making any such suggestions?

  7. #6

    Default

    When I read about that "CHIP" child identification masonic program, I thought about all of this and wondered how they were going to keep track of the DNA if they say they are going to give the parents all of the data.

    I'll bet they keep it on file some place as well. It's not like they can just hand the parents the data and later it could be used to locate a child.

    Original thread about collecting data from children: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=chip+children
    Last edited by Dr.3D; 04-29-2008 at 04:04 PM. Reason: Added link to original thread

  8. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MS0453 View Post
    It would seem to me that the only solution would be to have the database destroyed asap. M.L., do you live in Minnesota? Anyone making any such suggestions?
    Yes, I do live in Minnesota. So far, there hasn't been any suggestions on what to do. Although I did read that we, as parents, have the right to have our children's DNA files and blood samples destroyed but we need to do it in writing. And I'm not 100% sure on that either.

    I'm thinking of a possible Class Action Lawsuit to have all of the DNA samples destroyed, any thoughts on the legality of this?

    - ML

  9. #8

    Default

    Sorry, no legal knowledge here. I'll give you a bump in case we have any lawyers here though.

  10. #9

    Default

    It's 1:00 Central Time, do you know where your kid's DNA is?

    - ML

  11. #10






« Previous Thread | Next Thread »


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •