Out for Blood: Consent and Controversy

In the Nature editorial, “There will be blood,” the author takes issue with the sampling of an infant’s blood for testing without parental consent. The author asserts that parents are unaware that their child has his or her heel pricked and blood tested. While the author does not argue against the pricking of the child’s heel to sample the blood, the author does take issue with the lack of consent or awareness of the parent. In support of this issue, the author asserts that this is an ethical issue about the use of our genetic information. Because the hospitals will have the child’s genetic information on file, this raises the question of whether our blood and the information from our blood is our property or public domain.

As evidence, the author cites the opinion of nurses and M.H. Lewis who said “People want control over their genetic information and that of their children, and they are not getting it. Some parents might have been given a leaflet and some may even have signed a form, but as a recent review shows, state regulation of newborn screening is a mess.” In the Dark Daily article “Parents outraged at warehousing of DNA from newborn Baby screening programs used for clinical laboratory testing,” the author takes the position that an infant’s DNA should not even be kept. This takes a separate position from the Nature article’s position of needing explicit consent.

This Dark Daily article sees the storing of genetic information as an abuse of power in the medical industry.

Both articles raise important points about biological information and whether or not data from our blood is public or private domain. The Dark Daily article takes the stance that our blood information should not be stored in a public database to be tested because it is private property. As such, the consent of giving up data obtained from one’s blood does not belong to the parent, but the person whose blood is collected. And while I understand the writer’s opinion, I’m more inclined to agree with the Nature article. If the information is given with parental consent especially if it is used to test for birth defects, that decision should be left to the family. Perhaps the person whose blood is taken should have the option of having his or her information thrown out. I have trouble seeing the distinction of having a person’s DNA information stored and having someone’s blood type stored.

These two editorials take on interesting controversies regarding the use of genetic information taken at birth. This leads me to wonder about the nature of genetic testing. As of now, we use genetic information obtained at birth for screening uses. I find it acceptable to test for genetic disorders but could we one day get to a point where we could go beyond testing? The movie Gattaca is about the manipulation of genetic information. Should we one day get the ability to prevent genetic disorders, or even genetic “flaws” would we ever utilize this skill? Is it ethical? For those interested in Science Fiction, this movie is for you. For those who love either Ethan Hawke, Uma Thurman or Jude Law, this movie is for you too.

Here’s a trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZppWok6SX88&feature=related