Image from Unt.edu
The interwebs are abuzz with glowing reviews for Rebecca Skloot’s new book “The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks”. I’m currently #37 on the library reserve list (sorry, Rebecca, but I’m a poor grad student and I can’t afford to buy it). The book tells the story of the HeLa cell line, which are cells that were taken from a patient without her consent. These cells have led to important medical breakthroughs. But how isolated of an incident is this?
As it turns out, things like this are still happening. Just last week CNN.com had a story entitled the Government has your baby’s DNA. Most people are aware that newborns in this country are routinely screened (which is not diagnostic and has a high rate of false positives) for a variety of genetic diseases. While some object to this testing, I think it’s a great idea because early recognition of a disease may be key to treating it. These tests have saved or improved the quality of many lives. For example, testing can reveal if a child has PKU, and if the child eats a specially formulated diet, the disease can be easily managed. This policy is largely considered to be a public health success story, and I endorse it 100%.
However, some of the samples taken from newborns for the purposes of genetic disease screening are saved and given to medical researchers. This has some privacy rights advocates up in arms.
Why should you care if someone has access to your DNA? The information encoded in your DNA contains the most intimate health secrets about you, and it can easily be used by unscrupulous individuals against you. For example, your propensity for many diseases can be determined from your DNA (indeed, that’s what this screening program is all about). Many privacy rights advocates are concerned that if this information fell into the wrong hands, it would affect a person’s ability to get health insurance (and by extension, employment). Though that sounds like a paranoid rant, it has already happened. In fact, it happens a lot.
A 1992 NIH study found “Stigmatization, and denial of services or entitlements to individuals who have a genetic diagnosis but who are asymptomatic or who will never become significantly impaired.” People have been denied health insurance not because they show the symptoms of a disease, but because their genetic code shows that they might someday manifest symptoms of that disease. It is important to note that security procedures in place make it extremely difficult (as close to impossible as any real-life situation can ever be) for an insurance company to gain access to a person’s genetic samples in this particular case- the samples are supposed to be completely de-identified from the people they came from. We’re talking about bloodspots in a fridge with no name, birthday, or identifying number. The program is HIPAA compliant.
No one’s consent is sought when their baby’s DNA is stored- in fact, people usually aren’t even informed. However, researchers have made many important and potentially life-saving discoveries from these samples.
I believe that while saving lives at the expense of someone’s privacy rights may be something that people will agree to, doing it without asking permission is completely unacceptable from a research ethics standpoint.
Just to be perfectly clear, I support genetic disease screenings of newborns because it saves lives. My objection is to using genetic material left over from these health screenings for other research without the consent of the patient.
And now we get to the ethical debate.
Am I being overly paranoid?
Do you think that it is ok for scientists to use someone’s genetic material without asking their permission (keeping in mind that their research saves lives)?
Would you provide consent for your DNA to be used in such a study?
I am not interested in the current laws and regulations concerning informed consent. I am interested in what you think is right and wrong.
~WhySharksMatter
I think that medical consent should be necessary. I am sure they would get enough people that would voluntarily donate DNA for science….but to take without permission is wrong.
Like or Dislike:
5 
2
I have been working on my master thesis in the cancer field for the last two years, and as much as we (researchers) need and want samples and DNA I still think people need the consent. The question that came up during our stem cell seminar is what do people consent for. Do we just give them a blanket consent form which would allow us (researchers) to then use their cells for anything? Or do we make it specific and then re-consent them after a certain amount of years or if the procedure changes?
What I know is that most cancer patients will gladly donate samples, blood and DNA in the hope that a cure might be available to the next patient.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
Twitter: SFriedScientist
As far as the law is concerned, if you have tissue removed from your body, it’s considered trash and the hospital can do whatever it wants with it. Unless you specifically state that you don’t want your tissue used, you have no rights regarding what happens to it. The only right you do have is to privacy.
If you get an appendectomy, the hospital can keep your appendix, but they can’t reveal who it came from.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
5 
0
Twitter: WhySharksMatter
All those statements about the law are true, but do you think that is morally acceptable? Most people aren’t aware that this is the case.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
Too many parents think it is impossible that their child would have a genetic disease or that they have no risk factors – if we can’t trust parents to vaccinate (or at least to distinguish between Jenny McCarthy and real science), we can’t trust them to test. I realize that sounds inappropriately paternalistic, but I am the parent of a child who died from cancer caused by a rare genetic mutation. If they tested for it, and we had known, we could have started treatment earlier and potentially saved her life. We had no risk factors, no indications, no expectation of this happening. We might have denied permission, as would many – out of the same misguided principles that result in people preferring tree bark shaman treatments for cancer, avoiding vaccines, and so forth.
Furthermore, about 30 children a year in the United States are diagnosed with the disease. It was only identified about 10 years ago. I suggest you come look me in the eyes and tell me that it should be MORE difficult to do research on rare pediatric diseases. You could do this next Wednesday February 17 – the first anniversary of my daughter’s death. Thirty children a year, most of whom die before reaching 1 year old. It’s NOT GOOD ENOUGH for merely ‘most of’ those parents to consent. I have provided my own DNA, my husband provided his, and we provided my daughters – to cancer researchers at two hospitals, including St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital. We donated my daughters remains for further research, further tissue sampling. Because goddammit less children need to die, and if squeamish healthy people who have the liberty to feel unmotivated about research don’t like it, too bad.
There are already federal laws prohibiting employment and health insurance discrimination based on these results. It is called the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, went into effect in May 2009. Perhaps the law should be expanded, and with good reason. But in my opinion the testing and research should be expanded, too.
Like or Dislike:
3 
2
Twitter: WhySharksMatter
“less children need to die”- I think you’ll find few people who disagree with that.
“and if squeamish healthy people who have the liberty to feel unmotivated about research don’t like it, too bad.”
This makes me uncomfortable. The ends don’t always justify the means.
I am truly sorry to hear about your child, but I don’t think that justifies using people’s genetic samples without their consent and knowledge.
Like or Dislike:
3 
1
Well, I don’t think privacy protection is more important than life. You see it as a means end analysis, and I’m willing to talk in that rubric but I’m going to turn that right back around. The “end” of privacy protection doesn’t justify the “means” to achieve it, which is limiting research on serious diseases. Not when state and federal laws already prohibit the use of the information to discriminate.
Like or Dislike:
1 
2
Twitter: SFriedScientist
Mary, part of the bigger issue here is where the line really is, sure you could argue that when doctors took a biopsy of Henrietta Lack’s tumor and then used it to establish a cell line for research without informing her, that ultimately served the greatest good, but certainly not for her family.
What about the Tuskegee Syphilis experiment where doctors chose to let poor black men die of syphilis so that they could study the disease, even when they had a cure for it? Without every telling the patients they there were going to let them die. It’s not just about privacy, it’s also informed consent, making sure your patient knows exactly what you plan to do to them. And if a patient isn’t comfortable giving consent, too bad for you.
Human rights are absolutely as important as being alive.
Like or Dislike:
3 
1
Just a disclaimer, I work on a labor and birth floor, and I’m writing a thesis on the importance of informed consent in obstetrics, so you know I’m biased. But I still don’t think there’s a story here.
A few points:
All states except South Dakota allow parents to opt out of the program.
The analytes in the dried blood destabilize in a matter of weeks to a few months. Only one state keeps the samples cold enough to be viable over years, and only two analytes remain viable even then.
I’ll email the program guidelines for storage and research use of the samples to anyone who wants them, it’s pretty enlightening. They primarily hold onto them because of fear of lawsuits. And the expense involved in proper disposal. Given the federal regulations involved, sometimes it’s cheaper to toss something in the fridge indefinitely than to hire the proper people to cart it away. Hell, the public clinic I volunteer at has a fridge full of urine because the funding isn’t there to get rid of it.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
7 
0
Twitter: WhySharksMatter
“Allowing parents to opt out of the program” requires that parents are aware of the program. Doctors don’t tell them about it.
This reminds me of the Hitchiker’s Guide to the Galaxy- perhaps we could have stopped the Vogons from destroying Earth if only we had known that the plans for the new hyperspace bypass were on display on Alpha Centauri, but no one told us that they were there so we couldn’t do anything to stop it.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
I agree, consent to every instance of sampling would be great in an ideal world where health care providers had time to explain all the ins and outs of a complicated system. The truth of the matter is this, if medical records and samples weren’t routinely used for research, blessed little research in medicine would occur. That’s one of the reasons why HIPAA exists, and why you have to sign a form saying you understand HIPAA and your medical privacy rights every time you go to doctor, hospital, dentist etc. The fact that most people don’t read the forms, or bother to understand their rights, does not make this a huge ethical failing on the part of medicine. There are plenty of other huge ethical failings within medicine that need some light shed on them, but this is not one of them.
My major concern is that the CNN story (and this post by extension) takes a practice that is common, adds in a “we must protect the newborns” component by focusing solely on the newborn screen, and then sensationalizes it with the fear of “Lord knows what the government might do with all that DNA.” It’s very manipulative, and an easy story to sell, especially in our society where suspicion in regards to science and public health is very common. We really do not need to be encouraging or enabling a phenomenon like the immunization debacle.
Like or Dislike:
3 
1
Twitter: YellowOctopus
Why wouldn’t doctors ask for informed consent? If the parents were informed of the screening (which they should know about anyways, it’s not exactly a secret) and about the need for the use of the blood for research, most parents would give the okay.
I think you may be missing part of the story– why would they neglect to ask?
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
Got to sign on to the consent bandwagon on this one. If you need samples for life-saving research, then you need to convince people to give them up of their own free will (or closest reasonable facsimile thereof).
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
Twitter: SFriedScientist
It’s easy to argue that yeah, of course informed consent should be acquired in all cases, but at what point do you actually forfeit ownership of your own body? Sure, you can give or refuse consent for a blood sample, but what about a hair sample? What about a hair sample from the floor? Do you have to get informed consent before getting DNA from skin cells that have already sloughed off? What if they sloughed off at a crime scene?
What if you consent to a biopsy, but don’t want the data from the biopsy used for anything but to treat you? Does the hospital have a responsibility to give the tissue back to you? If you have a spleen removed do you still own it, or is it something you’ve discarded? If you throw out your trash, it’s perfectly moral for someone to pull it out of the dumpster. Why is it any different with your tissue?
Like or Dislike:
5 
1
You forfeit ownership at the same point you forfeit ownership of anything: when you give it to someone else or throw it away. If you get a biopsy, and only want it used for one thing (to test for disease, for example), then the consent forms should be clear, and all rights not explicitly allowed therein are reserved by the person from whom the biopsy was taken.
It should be like intellectual property: ownership is assumed to belong to the creator (grower?) until you have specific documentation demonstrating otherwise… only we shouldn’t allow people to be strong armed into signing away their rights (which we do in copyright, but that’s a different issue).
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
I think that as long as people have something to complain about, they will. What fascinates me about this type of media BS is that they make non-medical individuals think that current medical practices have perfected cloning or can somehow steal a bank account based on a tiny blood spot from a newborn; both are gross misrepresentations of what is actually done with the blood and what is even possible in today’s world.
That said – vaccinations have long helped erradicate diseases like polio, measles and smallpox (in this country) and mandatory testing/treatment in emergency rooms nearly did the same for syphilis. Do people complain when these things were/are done for the greater good of society? No.
Human beings by there very nature are selfish, I personally am no exception. When it comes to the question asked at the beginning of this blog re: “what is morally right/wrong,” it is not quite so straightforward given the context in which it was phrased.
Allow me to expand on this: the consent obtained for the above mentioned screening exam is implicit. The reason it is implicit is because no self-respecting parent on the planet would choose to “opt out” of having their child screened quickly and efficiently for a myriad of illnesses which have the potential to be devastating but are also relatively easy to treat (with some exceptions). Moreover, because it is something that is done in the best interest of the patient, even if a parent chose NOT to have this test done, there capacity to make decisions for the patient would be thrown into question and ultimately would become a huge legal battle, in the interim, laws would be created removing the rights of parents to make healthcare decisions for their child who clearly does not have capacity to decide for his/herself.
Now, since we have established that the consent is implied and the sample has already been obtained; whatever the lab/tech/physicians/researchers decide to do with it, as long as it does not violate the hippocratic oath, is both morally sound as well as outside of the control of the individual who has already consented to giving their blood. It would be like a racist going to the red cross, donating blood and then saying “I don’t want any (fill in the blank race) getting the blood i just donated.” Not only would it be immoral, it would be idiotic.
The simple fact that I have responded to this thread in such a meandering manner says that not only do the media mavens have way too much time on there hands, but apparently, so do I.
`peace out
Like or Dislike:
0 
9
I am disappointed so many educated individuals would give a thumbs down to a perfectly well crafted response to an intriguing question. Do enlighten me, was it the content or the fact readers felt insulted at the end?
Deeply saddened by the lack of intellect.
A Sadist
Like or Dislike:
0 
8
Twitter: SFriedScientist
Didn’t realize the dislike threshold was set so low. I’ve increased it to 5. As to why 3 people didn’t like your comment, I have no idea but imagine it probably had less to do with content or feeling insulted and more to do with the fact that it’s so unclear that I honestly have no idea what point you’re trying to make.
In case you’re wondering, I gave the comment immediately above a thumbs down for assuming that anyone who didn’t like you comment must lack intellect.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
6 
0
Allow me to attempt a re-explanation then … and again, I’m disheartened that people are so emotionally reactionary, but then again, I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised.
In summary –
1) There is no need for consent regarding the neonatal blood spot screening test because it is a state mandated exam. while this differs slightly from state to state, in most places it’s mandatory – as it should be since you are looking out for the best interests of the patient (the newborn) and not the parents who may not have a rational reason for wanting to “opt out.” For those of you out there that have a rational reason, do share.
2) Because you are sampling only blood and each sample is declassified after initial screening tests are performed, the testing which goes on when the “left overs” are studied by researchers has less to do with anything aimed specifically at the individual it was taken from and more toward developing new technology to improve current methods/practices. That said, I will ask what specific concerns people have re: the use of the blood in this fashion?
3) The first point I made in my reply earlier was that many times in medical history practices have been implemented that do not require consent and are done so for the “greater good” of society. This exam is no different, so why is it people are angered by the newborn screening exam’s lack of consent? With regard to the Tuskegee experiment, the medical field has made great improvements in what can and cannot be attempted and most every study has to go through an Institutional Review Board before being conducted, what studies go on with the newborn samples is no different, rest assured there are plenty of legal and ethics experts that sit on these panels.
The bottom line people is that when the media has an opportunity to strike fear in the hearts of American’s it will do just that, all to make a buck. None of you should believe anything you’re told until you have supportive evidence.
Finally, please educate me regarding how newborns are protected by NOT screening?
Like or Dislike:
0 
6
Twitter: WhySharksMatter
Nobody is talking about not screening. Nobody. You are intentionally misrepresenting our words to make yourself sound more reasonable. Screening newborns saves lives and is a great public health policy success story.
The issue is that some researchers take leftover material from these screening tests and use it for additional research without the consent (or knowledge) of the patients or their parents. The fact that you don’t see a problem with that does not mean that there isn’t a problem with that.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
6 
0
I thought that you were looking for opinions w/explanation – i provided an opinion, i’m not saying it’s right; i’m just looking for some dialogue.
So expound on your statement “does not mean that there isn’t a problem with that…”
1) may i please have a specific example of where this is occuring and what type of research exactly you are referring to?
2) please refer to my original number 2 and provide a reason why this is concerning?
3) if you read a consent then you know that by giving up your tissue, cells, dna, etc in any form, you basically are saying it’s no longer yours; stated differently, if you give a doctor your blood or tissue, you don’t get to take it home with you, it is technically no longer your property
4) please explain why the patients and or their parents need to know about the additional testing? Does it affect them personally?
Like or Dislike:
0 
4
Informed consent, yo. Consent given without full information is invalid. Over-the-top example: Say I ask you “Hey, can I have a pen? I need to sign this form to get money out of the bank.” Sounds reasonable, right? So most people would hand over the pencil. If I sign the document, then stab someone in the eye with it, would that person have a valid reason to be upset? Once they hand it over, it’s no longer their property, right? Why do they need to know about the additional use? Does it affect them personally?
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
Fascinating example. It’s flawed for at least two reasons, one – your example involves taking something and then using it to intentionally harm another individual. (Where is the harm being done to the newborns or there families?) And two – this is a verbal consent; every informed consent obtained in a hospital is a written document and if people want to read the whole thing, will realize exactly what they are disclosing/giving up or agreeing to.
I’m not sure that it applies, but I would say, why not go a step further and make people sign paperwork for owning guns … after all, the person selling the gun has no control over what the buyer does after making the purchase.
Ultimately, it sounds like you just want to live in a world run by lawyers where every action we take is preceded by some kind of contractual obligation with full disclosure.
Should McDonalds, Burger King and Coca Cola have to provide an informed consent prior to someone purchasing and consuming there products stating that they’ve informed you of the adverse health effects?
How about intellectual property? Does every conversation you have with someone need a confidentiality agreement signed to prevent them from repeating something you’ve said and pretending as if it was there own?
Like or Dislike:
0 
4
1) “Where is the harm being done to the newborns or there families?”
The same place as the harm done to the person who gave me the pen: there is none. Would you be upset that I used the pen I obtained from you in that manner? Something tells me that you would, and moreso than merely from stabbing someone in general, I think.
2) “this is a verbal consent”
Pretend there’s a contract that says in writing that I will use the pen to sign the withdrawal slip. I fulfilled the letter of the contract, there is no violation. Why are you so upset?
Remember the part where you said refusing consent is wrong? You advocate forcing people’s consent here, because it’s tacked onto a contract for something required for different reasons. If you’re allowed to go through line-by-line and veto parts of the contract, sure, but you really aren’t. Even if you were, you’re not a lawyer, and will probably screw it up if you try. Even if you were, what if you have an emergency appendectomy? There’s no paperwork to sign, you’re dying on a table and they have a matter of minutes to remove the broken part. Can they just use that for research without your knowledge or agreement, too?
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
0 
12
I don’t think you are being overly paranoid either. I think that consent should be necessary for the use of someone’s genetic material. Although I understand the extremely beneficial effects of having these samples is saving lives, I do not understand why they can’t continue to save lives with the approval of the patient. This would allow researchers to use the samples without any concern for breaking privacy laws. It is absolutely unethical for a doctor or researcher to take something from a patient without their consent. We sign a million pieces of paper at the doctor’s office for a reason. There are more than enough people in this world who are willing to provide samples in hopes of finding life altering cures. I know I would be willing to help if a doctor asked my permission. It’s not like I need these samples, I have a million! By not telling the patients and families it makes it seem as if doctors are hiding something that they should not be participating in. By giving consent it makes it a win-win situation for patients, doctors, and future people who may need the cure that your or my sample may have provided.
Like or Dislike:
0 
7
I think the first issue here is the fact that people just don’t know. Most of us don’t even know to ask to begin with. I know for me at least, this is new information. Not only did I not know the purpose of keeping the DNA, but I was unaware that it was even being kept. I think the public should be made aware of this situation immediately because even if the use of it doesn’t bother them, they should have the right to make that call themselves.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
I believe that people should have to give consent if scientists want to use their DNA. I understand the legal aspect that after it has left your body it is consider waste and it is better to use it for scientific purposes then to throw it out However, I still think since it is a person’s bodily fluid it should be left up to the individual as to what will happen to their unused sample. For example one thing that needs consent is organ donation and quite a few people have agreed one they pass away their organs can be donated for medical science or for people who need organs. To me organ donation and the way a person’s left over DNA is used are not that different. I believe that consent is needed because I think if scientist don’t request consent and especially if people are not informed about the usage of their DNA, then I think in a way scientist are infringing on a person right as to how they what their DNA used. Also what is to stop scientist from not informing individuals and requesting consent for other medical procedures? People tend to have strong beliefs when it comes to medical procedures and uses of disregarded samples. In medical circumstances I believe that scientists should accepts everyone’s personal belief or opinion and request consent.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I don’t think that scientists should be allowed to just take your DNA with you not knowing/without your permission. It is yours, and if they want to take it they should ask. I do know that they are taking your DNA because they are using it for medical purposes, but still I believe that they should ask before they take it.
Being from a family who is prone to cancer, I think that it is important to take DNA from people so that we are able to test and retest until we find a cure or answer. If taking DNA from people while they are being screened helps us find a cure, its important that we continue doing this. But, I do believe that it should require consent from the patient.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Although parties from either side of the spectrum could both maintain a considerable argument to defend their end of this moral debate, there is no arguing that obtaining an individuals DNA for Research without their knowledge is anywhere near acceptable, let alone moral, even if lives are being spared along the way. Given the worlds population, 6,692,030,277 in the 2008 census, there is little argument that testing samples are a rarity. With past trends in mind, plethora’s of people have always been willing to contribute in any capacity to further advances in scientific understanding; why not continue to give them the option to do so?
Like or Dislike:
0 
3
While genetic disease screenings may save the lives of newborns, I think that it is unethical for doctors to pass on genetic information to scientists without permission. A person’s DNA is private information that should not be experimented with unless that person has given his consent. Your body belongs to you and only you decide what you want to do with it. I do not think that it is ethical for scientists to use any part of someone’s body, including a sample his DNA, for their own research. However, I think that if a person gives his consent, then it is fine for scientists to use the person’s DNA for further research. Personally, if my DNA would contribute to any scientific studies, then I would give my permission for it to be used.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
I guess I’m here to be the devil’s advocate. I think there is nothing wrong with scientists using someone’s genetic material without asking for permission because its more important that lives are being saved. We give up rights all the time for safety. It’s not like its being used for a negative reason. The purpose is to do research and contribute to the knowledge of our human race. Like most things, there is a Catch-22 situation. If the genetic material is passed on without consent, insurance companies can use it against an individual if it appears to be an issue in the genetic material. I feel a resolution to this issue would be to send the individual a note informing them that their “left-over” genetic material is being passed on and if they would like to appeal the decision, they could do so. I personally would provide consent for my DNA to be used in a study because the end result is the most important to me.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
This is a subject that I had to really think about before I could formulate my response. On one hand, someone’s DNA is theirs and it is such a huge part of them. It unlocks so many mysterious to their body and like said in the article, if the wrong person gets a hold of this material it can cause problems for it’s owner. On the other hand this genetic material could unlock many doors to treating various diseases and helping unlock many questions about how DNA works.
Although DNA is such a huge part of an individual, when one is at the hospital and they have collected one’s DNA in some various form why should it matter what they do with it? Wouldn’t it be better to put it to use for research than simply throw it away?
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
I don’t think that medical professionals should be able to take your DNA without your permission. Its your property, and if they should have to ask before taking. I am not sure that they are taking DNA for medical purposes, but I know they should ask before using it.
I feel like the uses from the benefits of taken DNA could have great outcomes. It could be used in the advancement of medicine to cure things like cancer. It could be worth it, but in the end you have to consent.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I think medical consent is always necessary! I believe its not right and unlawful to take someone’s DNA without their permission and then later on could be use against them for denying health insurance and losing their job. Then they also can be cloned without even knowing it n the next decade because cloning is still a progressive research being done everyday. Less babies need to die and the screen of the baby at the beginning finding diseases is very effective strategy that help the baby live and manage any disease they might have obtain.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
From a younger generations view point who has yet to have a child, I can still say I do feel the screening is a necessary action that needs to continue to take place simply because of the fact that it has and continues to save many lives. This screening has been able to catch a deadly or critical disease early on, which then enables us to have the possibility of maintaining or regulating the possible negative effects of that disease. However to keep this DNA long after the screening is cleared and have scientist do studies on it without the parents or child knowing is not only invasion of privacy but in my opinion its Identity theft. Even if the DNA has no diseases present or has genes that might lead to having the ability to save others lives with a little research, I still feel it is a serious matter to take and use the DNA of another human without their consent.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
In response to this statement by Southern Fried Scientist…
“What if you consent to a biopsy, but don’t want the data from the biopsy used for anything but to treat you? Does the hospital have a responsibility to give the tissue back to you? If you have a spleen removed do you still own it, or is it something you’ve discarded? If you throw out your trash, it’s perfectly moral for someone to pull it out of the dumpster. Why is it any different with your tissue?”
In an earlier statement, before this one, you stated, “It’s not just about privacy, it’s also informed consent, making sure your patient knows exactly what you plan to do to them. And if a patient isn’t comfortable giving consent, too bad for you. Human rights are absolutely as important as being alive.”
So, why all of a sudden are you questioning how your left over tissue is any different from the trash in your dumpster?
Personally, I do not think that the hospital would “have a responsibility” to give your tissue back to you. In a consent form, you would not sign to get your tissue back, but you would sign for them to only use your personal tissue to treat/test you and only you. It came from your body, it belongs to you. Regardless whether or not it is inside of you, it’s yours.
So yes, if I had my spleen removed, I would still consider it my own. Chances are, I removed it for a reason, and that reason was mostly likely not by choice. The only time I would consider an organ out of my own body “discarded” is if I was dead and I had given CONSENT to donate them.
And technically, it is not PERFECTLY moral for someone to pull trash out of a dumpster if the dumpster belongs to you. “Dumpster diving becomes a crime when someone steals your garbage that is considered to be concealed like when it is located at the back of your house or inside your garage. They are still, technically, your own private property because they are located within your premises.” (http://ezinearticles.com/?Dumpster-Diving-101—How-to-Protect-Yourself-From-Identity-Theft&id=4173039)
So in my personal opinion, I do not think that it is ok for scientists to use someone’s genetic material left over from a health screening for other research without the consent of the patient. I am sure that it has saved a lot of lives, but what ever happened to saving your own? “Human rights are absolutely as important as being alive.”
So why would I not have my human right to say NO to this procedure?
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
Twitter: SFriedScientist
Because at some point there is a line where you forfeit possession of your discarded tissue, or is there?
If you leave blood, skin cells, hair follicles, or any other tissue at a crime scene, the police can take it, database it, use it to identify you, and then convict you. So obviously there’s a point where you give up possession of your genetic information.
And guess what? You don’t own your organs once they’re removed unless you specifically ask for them back. Most of the time they go to medical schools for training, sometime to labs with specific goals, but as far as the law is concerned, the only responsibility the hospital has to you is to not identify who the tissue came from.
Don’t conflate dumpster diving with trespassing. If you throw something away, it’s trash. Anyone can dig through a landfill and claim it.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
I do not believe you are paranoid. I agree that it is ok to screen newborns. I don’t think that genetic material left over should be screened without the patients consent. I believe that if scientists ask to use peoples DNA and tell them what they are testing for then people will agree to use it. I’m not saying that everyone will but a lot of people will agree to it. I think DNA should be screened to help save lives of humans. If a scientist asked me to let them study my DNA I would give them consent but I first would want to know what the scientist were going to study before giving consent.
Like or Dislike:
0 
2
I believe that it is unethical for anyone to take DNA without their permission. As a parent, I understand how much genetic disease screenings could help, but taking it without the knowledge of the parents is absurd. There are many forms to fill out and sign when you are admitted in to the hospital to give birth. It seems as simple as adding in another form that gives parents the option to opt in or out of DNA sampling of their newborn child. The behavior of doctors passing on genetic information to scientists without parental consent seems as if there is an ulterior motive.
The idea of insurance companies using the results of the testing to have the power to write or not write health insurance policies is not fair, especially if consent isn’t given to release a person’s identity. I do think that a line is crossed when researchers have identities tagged to the blood sample and this information can impact someone’s life negatively. However, if genetic sampling can save lives, and I was given the option to consent, I would.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I would be less concerned about the donation of genetic material if genes were not allowed to be patented. Why should I donate my material “for the greater good” to only discover that the therapies created from that material are only being made by one pharmaceutical corp. – the one that received a patent for the gene. I’m not suggesting that there shouldn’t be a return for the research investment, but not to the exclusion of other research that could save lives.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I agree that patients should be asked whether they would like to donate their DNA or, more specifically, whether they would like to donate it to research. I understand that DNA is often taken for different tests, but it is a part of that individual. He has the right to know what exactly it is being used for. Yes, he knows it is being used to test whether he is positive or negative for a possible disease, but he should have the right to know that it will be used for other research or, for that matter, the right to give consent for its future use in research. I would like to know whether or not my DNA was being used without my consent because it is mine and no one has the rights to it other than me. In the case of infants, the parents have the right to consent or refuse the use of their child’s DNA in future research.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0