<p>I’m concerned that this is only the beginning. Who knows, the next step could be taking DNA at traffic stops… </p>
<p>There is already so much data collected by the government, and by large corporations, and it is already being used in ways that were not intended. Didn’t Ben Franklin say something like “those who are willing to give up their liberty for security deserve neither liberty nor security”?</p>
<p>We keep getting closer and closer to a police state, if we’re not there already.</p>
<p>I wanted to know whether you are kidding. I find it unbelievable that you think it’s okay for the police to take and store DNA samples from crime victims without their knowledge or consent, just because they can. You don’t see any problems with that?! Really?</p>
<p>If you don’t do the crime you have nothing to worry about now do you? I’d rather keep the guilty in jail and the rest of us safer. It’s just another form of iD–like your face–but easier to match.</p>
<p>It couldn’t ever really be done without consent and knowledge. I know that some will say that all they have to do is snip a piece of hair or such. But that’s no different than finger prints. They could easily get finger prints from people without their knowledge. All they have to do is offer a victim at the police station a glass of water. But they don’t. Nor would I believe that they would be doing it with DNA. </p>
<p>However; I have no problem with collecting DNA from victims and others with their consent. As already mentioned, it’s not the cheapest process in the world. Question; how many people go for a regular medical treatment at least every few years. Almost always they take blood. If you want to be paranoid, don’t you think they could get a DNA specimen from that? What about when women have a pap smear. (Not sure if that’s how it’s spelled). They could get dna from that also if they wanted. Urinalyses, donating blood, etc… I’m not a doctor, but it sounds like there’s a lot of ways to get a dna specimen besides saliva. If you’re going for the paranoia conspiracy theory, might as well go all the way. </p>
<p>And this has nothing to do with Ben Franklin and giving up freedoms. Did we give up freedoms when it became mandatory to get a driver’s license compared to the early 1900’s when anyone was allowed to drive a car or even an airplane when they were first available? I have no idea what freedoms you are giving up by having a DNA record on file. Your DNA isn’t going to change. Anything you were born with is still that way. All these years with a lie detector and yet most cases it’s not used in court. Plus; if Hillary or Obama get their way, everyone gets universal health care anyway so it doesn’t matter if you are a genetic mutant. Of course our country will be totally broke and socialist, but who cares.</p>
<p>Plus; if Hillary or Obama get their way, everyone gets universal health care anyway so it doesn’t matter if you are a genetic mutant.
Don’t you think we need better health coverage in this country?
Should some have to pay more because of the luck of the draw?
If genetic defects are identified before birth ( as some are) and if those defects are life threatening ( as some are) is it just that families tough luck?
Who determines treatment? What if there is no treatment? Who pays for it?
Is that child doomed to be born ( and die) anyway?</p>
<p>Kity; you ask a lot of varying questions. I’ll see if I can answer them. I know you probably won’t like them however. LOL!!!</p>
<ol>
<li>No; I think our health coverage is fine for the most part. Our health care is so good that many from overseas come here for it. As far as coverage, I don’t believe in universal health care. I have no problem with emergency health care and even to an extent preventive health care. People don’t get turned away for emergencies. But I am not for anything beyond that. If I can afford higher levels of health care, so be it. If other can, so be it.</li>
<li>If you want more health care beyond emergency or preventative, then you can get your own insurance and/or coverage.</li>
<li>I don’t understand your question about birth defects via DNA. That’s already determined now. I think you are trying to relate this to the extremely poor. Which by the way isn’t as large a population as you might want to believe. But to answer your question; again, I don’t believe in universal health care. If people want to buy health coverage insurance beyond emergency and preventative care, they are free to. The problem is with insurance companies, pharmaceuticals, and malpractice. Fix that and the free market will take care of the cost.</li>
<li>The remaining questions are almost rhetorical. There isn’t an answer. No matter what type of health care system you have, there will always be some children born with defects that can’t be corrected. Assuming that the parents decide to have the baby after finding out certain conditions, there is, was, and always will be a level of risk. Even modern medicine can’t cure everything.</li>
</ol>
<p>The bottom line is that health care is available to all citizens. That is a fact. Now, if you want to complain that some people get a better level of health care than some others, then you might as well complain that some people have a Volvo while others have a used ford. That some people live in 5000 sf homes while others live in cramped 1 br apartments. There is no end to that scenario. I don’t believe in socialized medicine, economies, of any other society. Every dollar that you GIVE to someone means you take a dollar from someone else. I don’t believe in redistribution of wealth. Again; I have no problem with emergency and preventative health care. We have that now and it’s fine. Anything beyond that people can pay for through insurance, hmo, etc… </p>
<p>If you want it to be more affordable, then get your congressman off their rear end and have them go after the healthcare industry; especially insurance companies. Get them to go after the courts for tort reform so doctors can’t be sued every time something doesn’t go right. Limit the lawsuits and insurance scams and you can get the cost of healthcare down. Do that, and we can talk. But NO, I don’t want universal health care. It’s not a right, and I shouldn’t have to pay for someone else beyond emergency and preventative. Maybe some of these people will decide to take better care of themselves instead of using their limited finances on junk food, cigarettes, alcohol, no exercise, pregnant at 15, etc… Oh, and before you ask, I am totally against the welfare and public assistance programs as they are currently set up.</p>
<p>And, so what if it has more information. They have had lie detectors for years, yet most places say you can’t use the results in court. Why can’t the law simply say that an insurance company, HMO, etc… can’t use DNA information from certain things. Remember; if a health care facility or whatever wanted to use such information, they simply just have the health care professionals do up a dna test every time they have a person come in for a check up, pap smear, (Spelling); flu shot; etc… In other words; anything you think they could use DNA for in a negative manner, can already be used that way if they wanted to.</p>
<p>There’s levels of privacy invasion. If someone takes and records my DNA without my consent currently, I have legal recourse. When the government begins storing DNA all of sudden there are all kinds of potential problems (not the least being identity theft, which is far more serious with DNA than with fingerprints), especially with the current climate of routine information abuses by the government (justified in your opinion or not, the amount and frequency of the government storing or accessing information it is not strictly entitled to has increased of late).</p>
<p>Yes, they do need a law to ban discrimination for these tests, or insurance companies could use them to deny care.
Once all of our DNA is on file, can we trust that the insurance companies won’t use it to make judgments about coverage? And don’t say the government wouldn’t share this info with insurance companies. or that they couldn’t talk their way into access…we’re pretty far down that road already.</p>
<p>It makes me very nervous. As owlice suggests, there are many potential uses for this DNA information other than identification in a criminal case.</p>
<p>“I could never be a defense lawyer unless the client agreed to admitting guilt; if they were.”</p>
<p>Then you really want to live in a country with a very different legal system than the American system, where it is up to the prosecution to prove that a criminal defendant is guilty. The job of the defense attorney is to ensure that the government meets its obligation to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Our founding fathers well understood that this would result in some guilty people being acquitted of crimes, but they believed that these rights were necessary to protect the innocent.</p>