Indiana storing baby blood without consent

[Tastyfish]

Yea I know, it sounds like something out of a bad modern vampire movie.
So sampling baby blood is a normal thing, you know to test for issues and whatnot, no big deal.
Until you save it in a secret warehouse and tell nobody...
They should be compelled to destroy all samples, rite?
http://www.wthr.com/story/25954821/2...dna-who-has-it
http://io9.com/indiana-stored-babies...ium=socialflow

[Sunseeker]

If the samples have been separated from personally identifying information, then they are useless because consent would need to be given for ALL of them, which is never going to happen.

[Catta]

So cute outrage. In Norway and Denmark scientists remove dead infants brains without the expressed consent of the parents.

[Sunseeker]

So cute outrage. In Norway and Denmark scientists remove dead infants brains without the expressed consent of the parents.

Dead bodies have different rights than living humans. A lot of things can be done to the dead without consent (though consent is usually at least asked for first), that cannot be done with the living.

This is pretty simple stuff.

[Al Gorefiend]

So...

Is it for sale? I have some pagan rituals to complete.

[Shinra1]

People love to moan about everything these days.

[Dezerte]

Nobody is getting hurt, so I can't say I'm that bothered by it.

[Ayla]

I am outraged. I better start saving all my hair, nails and dead skin flakes. These things are alive and feel. Testing on them is testing on me!

Seriously, I thought this was going to be about cord blood. I dont see what the issue is. Its already been taken from me, why not use it?

If I was an organ donor, and they took stuff from me and just tossed it, id be livid. (Not an organ donor because my organs arent viable)

[obdigore]

So someone had the 'smart' idea to keep extra blood from baby screenings around, separated from identifying data, in case it would help medical research. Then they failed to realize that medical ethics require you to notify people of stuff like this, so Indiana has all this ethically useless blood lying around.

They should destroy it, and use the warehouse for the people who say 'yes' to the 'new' questions of 'can we use your childs extra blood we took for medical screening for medical tests in the future?'

I don't think they should be compelled to destroy all samples so long as all identifying information isn't stored with them, there just isn't anything they can use them for so no reason for the state to store them.

[Deleted]

The question here is why they're doing this? Just too lazy or cheap to dispose of it? Not a big deal I guess, they'll get to it eventually. But if they're using it for ehatever reason, they need to be fined and their license needs to be taken away.

[Underverse]

Nobody is getting hurt, so I can't say I'm that bothered by it.

My thoughts as well. Seems like an issue for the politically correct police.

[Ayla]

My thoughts as well. Seems like an issue for the politically correct police.

Its not like its gone forever either. You'll make more.

[Kulanae]

I think it is a dangerous precedent for the government to collect genetic information without consent.

Gattaca anyone?

[Sunseeker]

I think it is a dangerous precedent for the government to collect genetic information without consent.

Gattaca anyone?

They collected it with consent. They kept it without. There's a difference.

[Aeluron Lightsong]

They collected it with consent. They kept it without. There's a difference.

Perhaps but keeping it without is still kind of bad. Not nearly as bad as the former but still bad.

[Tastyfish]

My thoughts as well. Seems like an issue for the politically correct police.

When does that stop then Quetzl? When do you find passive acts that skirt the law or break it, no longer acceptable? ^_^ I have a feeling it stops when it's a personal invasion, eh?

It's one thing to check biomarkers or w/e from blood that has no identity to it but the implication here, is there is a way to determine X persons stuff is theirs,which is uncool and should not be the case.

[Sunseeker]

Perhaps but keeping it without is still kind of bad. Not nearly as bad as the former but still bad.

I was just pointing out that consent was given for collection and use in their original purpose, just not for any later use or purpose.

[Deleted]

They collected it with consent. They kept it without. There's a difference.

except the later can reasonably be inferred to void the former.

[Sunseeker]

except the later can reasonably be inferred to void the former.

Wait wait what? The fact that you kept it without permission cancels out that it was given with permission? Well, when you invest time travel to make the effect invalidate the cause, please let me know.

[Deleted]

Wait wait what? The fact that you kept it without permission cancels out that it was given with permission? Well, when you invest time travel to make the effect invalidate the cause, please let me know.

i consent to A, and you instead do B, did i consent to you doing B?.