The Star Tribune recently published a story about the ethical debate over storing the heelprick blood taken from every newborn baby in the United States. (http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/health/83831712.html?elr=KArksUUUoDEy3LGDiO7aiU) The article presents bioethical issues concerning privacy and morality. The notion that the blood samples can benefit the whole country and society as a whole is only briefly mentioned. Science is part of an institution and they both need each other to survive.
Dear Editor;
Sharon Terry of the nonprofit Genetic Alliance has the right grasp on the, “Ethics Debate Over Blood From Newborn Safety Tests” (Feb. 9, 2010). Sharon is accurate when she states, “There will be an enormous benefit overall to the system.” Storing and studying the blood spots from newborns can only increase the welfare of the population in the United States.
R.C. Lewontin makes clear the link between genes and society in his work, Biology as Ideology. He states, “Genes make individuals and individuals make society, and so genes make society.” Therefore, the genetic information gathered from the blood spots benefits all of society and should not be discarded. Furthermore, since the blood spots are stripped of identifying information it seems that the bioethics of this issue follow the rules of morality.
The government has provided an amazing public good in using the blood spots to create one of public health’s most successful programs. It needs to continue to assure it has access to this wealth of information. If people are so concerned about the result of storage, they might consider opting out of all the treatments and knowledge that have been created by the government from programs such as this.
No comments:
Post a Comment