Baby blood samples stored for research without parent permission


Indiana is one of those states that acts a lot like the Deep South but flies under the radar because everyone thinks it’s just part of Middle America. It’s got all the Tea Party errors writ large. Human rights? Bah. Functional government? Hey, we’d have to tax white people for that. I’m just surprised that they didn’t use the DNA anyway.

And I love the detail that the blood has been stored in 666 banker’s boxes. The jokes just write themselves.


You don’t understand. Full disclosure and informed consent means communism. Freedom means you have no rights. Any questions?

1 Like

“According to Bowman, the blood samples have been detached from personal identifying information, which is maintained separately in a state computer database.”

So, who wants to bet that ‘detached’ means “Well, we put all ID data, along with a unique ID number, in one database and the unique ID number and the blood in a different database, and that’s totally impossible to correlate or anything…”

Also politely elided, in all the discussion of how it can’t be used for medical research because of lack of patient consent, is the question of whether anyone on the laundry list o’ law enforcement entities (who aren’t subject to medical ethics rules) can, or already has, had a friendly chat about the database in the context of doing a bit of DNA-database fishing… After all, the oldest babies in the ‘after 1991’ group are drinking legally now, so they’ve had plenty of time to become interesting to law enforcement, and a handily pre-collected and identified set of samples to run crime scene DNA against would be handy…

This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.