Indiana storing baby blood without consent

[Sunseeker]

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

They DID A. They also did B. It is not an either or here. They ran the tests just like you gave them permission to do, and then they went and stored the stuff.

[Kulanae]

They DID A. They also did B. It is not an either or here. They ran the tests just like you gave them permission to do, and then they went and stored the stuff.

The stored it with the intention of using it for medical testing. They have admitted same.

- - - Updated - - -

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

There is no difference. They obtained a sample for a single use test from an individual. They collected the samples from many people and stored them. There is no possible use that said collection could be used for that falls within the original purpose each sample was obtained for.

[s_bushido]

I'm having a hard time seeing why this such a big deal.

From the article:

Her organization believes state and federal efforts to expand newborn screening programs can be a "back-door effort to bypass parental rights, collect and store newborn DNA and expand government access to the genetic code of Americans."

It just seems like fearmongering bullshit like this is little more than an impediment to progress.

But then again, I'm one of those crazy people who thinks that postmortem organ donations should be an opt-out thing (rather than opt-in as it is now)...

[Sunseeker]

The stored it with the intention of using it for medical testing. They have admitted same.

And said testing never happened because they realized they didn't have consent.

There is no difference. They obtained a sample for a single use test from an individual. They collected the samples from many people and stored them. There is no possible use that said collection could be used for that falls within the original purpose each sample was obtained for.

In your opinion. Legally there is a difference.

As I have repeated, and apparently people are refusing to understand:
The collection and initial testing was legal.
The storage and potential transfer to 3rd parties is/was not.

I am not suggesting that the latter was ever legal or covered by the consent. When something is in the posession of another, it's possible for them to do things that are both inside and outside the scope of your consent. You may attempt to argue that if you had known they would be doing these other things, you wouldn't have given your consent but that's besides the point. Your consent was given for action A, which was taken. Your consent was not given for action B, which was also taken. Action B violates the scope of the original consent given, but does not invalidate the consent to action A.

It's not complicated.

[Kulanae]

It's not complicated. They have already changed the policy to ask for permission to store the samples and if the permission is not given they are destroyed within 30 days.

The remedy is simple. If they cannot obtain permission for samples from past tests......they should be destroyed within 30 days per current policy. Unless of course they are being ordered to retain the samples as evidence by a court of law.

[Sunseeker]

It's not complicated. They have already changed the policy to ask for permission to store the samples and if the permission is not given they are destroyed within 30 days.

The remedy is simple. If they cannot obtain permission for samples from past tests......they should be destroyed within 30 days per current policy. Unless of course they are being ordered to retain the samples as evidence by a court of law.

I never said or suggested otherwise. Storing the samples without consent is wrong and they will most likely be destroyed considering that they have been separated from their owner information, they would need to obtain consent from EVERYONE in order to retain ANY samples. Since someone will undoubtedly object, the samples will be destroyed.

[Gheld]

Since the owners of the blood samples can't be identified, but they think they might be useful for medical research, why not just contact the parents to see if they can get permission, and if say 50% give permission, keep 50% and destroy the rest. I mean it's not like anybody can possibly know which ones are kept or destroyed.

Or how about if 50% give permission, destroy all but 5% of them, that way the odds of a non permitting parent's children's blood being kept are statistically insignificant.

[Deleted]

So...

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

this was my first thought aswell^^

[prwraith]

Meh I think every person born / living within the us should have a blood sample on file for a database in case of blood at a crime.

Just imo though.

[Deleted]

Meh I think every person born / living within the us should have a blood sample on file for a database in case of blood at a crime.

Just imo though.

If a government proves itself untrustworthy and you lose confidence in your ability to effect change through democratic measures what routes are left open to you that don't involve leaving the country.

I'm confused