Archive
-
July, 2010
-
June, 2010
-
May, 2010
-
April, 2010
-
March, 2010
-
February, 2010
-
January, 2010
-
December, 2009
-
November, 2009
-
October, 2009
-
September, 2009
-
August, 2009
-
July, 2009
-
May, 2009
-
April, 2009
-
March, 2009
-
February, 2009
-
January, 2009
-
December, 2008
-
November, 2008
-
October, 2008
-
September, 2008
-
August, 2008
-
July, 2008
-
June, 2008
-
May, 2008
-
April, 2008
-
March, 2008
-
February, 2008
-
January, 2008
-
December, 2007
-
November, 2007
-
October, 2007
-
September, 2007
-
July, 2007
-
June, 2007
-
May, 2007
-
April, 2007
-
March, 2007
-
February, 2007
-
January, 2007
-
October, 2006
|
Home
|
|
Monday, 15 February 2010 |
This post could have the same title as the previous one and be the second one in a long series. Táňa from Minneapolis sent me a link to a CNN article, which says that US government has the DNA of the kids born here. In many states, they store the specimen taken from newborns (without explicit parental conset) for several years (it's 23 years in New Jersey, but indefinitely in some other states).
Those who do the testing claim they only use the proteins from blood to detect various diseases and that nobody is analyzing the DNA. That's, of course, great in cases they uncover the disease but it also means they could analyze the DNA. If they wanted. After a few years. In a country where the insurance company can drop a person if they become too sick (or because she had a c-section). What if they start rejecting people based on some genetic predisposition for certain disease? Paranoia? And since we're talking about procedures done without consent... Recently I've read an article how medical students in Canada routinely perform pelvic exams on women who are under general anesthesia during or immediately after a surgery. Yes, it's true that this is something that cannot be learned just by reading a book, but if it was done by a man in a hotel room after he slipped something into the woman's drink at the bar, it would be called rape. According to Canadian Medical Association: "There is also an assumption that women would never accept pelvic exams by students while conscious so sneaking them in, while not ideal, is acceptable." WTF??? All this while a poll showed that sixty-two per cent of respondents would consent to medical students doing pelvic exams, and an additional 5 per cent said “yes” but only if a female student was doing the exam. Any other illusions?
|
|
Last Updated ( Thursday, 25 March 2010 )
|
|
|
|