Over on Privacy Lives, Melissa Ngo blogs about an issue I’ve discussed a number of times on this blog: the collection, storage, and use/misuse of newborns’ blood samples. Melissa points us to a discussion on Minnesota Public Radio:
… On Tuesday, parents, doctors and researchers urged state lawmakers to reject proposed restrictions on Minnesota’s Newborn Screening program — changes that could keep other parents from such lifesaving results.
Amendments in two Senate bills would require the Minnesota Department of Health to promptly destroy the blood samples that are collected from newborns to identify rare medical disorders that aren’t obvious at birth.
“Our genetic information is ours … until there is consent for the use of our genetic information, no research should happen.”
Currently, the agency stores the blood samples indefinitely so they can be used for quality control tests or disease research. The new rules would allow parents to give their written permission to store the material up to a maximum of two years.
Read more on MPR. It’s probably one of the more balanced discussions of the issue that I’ve seen in a while.
Some of the issue comes down to transparency and consent. Why is so that very hard for governments and researchers to embrace? That if you explain what you want to do, explain how it will benefit the individual or others, and then ask for consent, many will consent? It’s always seemed to me that government simply doesn’t trust its own citizenry and takes a “we know best” attitude that justifies them riding roughshod over crucial consent and ethical issues.