Imagine this scenario:
"The Government has my Baby's DNA! " cried a new mother who just found out her baby's blood has been sampled so the baby can be tested for a series of life-threatening diseases. While she is thankful that her baby has been tested negative, she is still upset that her baby's DNA remains in the hands of the government … Is that really true? If so, what's the big deal ?
In the past few years, newborn screening programs across the world have taken some heat from the public. While the program was originally initiated to protect and to serve families, many advocates have taken a new twist to the population-based screening. General public miscommunication and misinterpretation of the original purpose of newborn screening could possibly shut down one of the most life-saving and cost-effective programs for public health.
Read this link, and compare your thoughts about the Scotland's situation with other countires (such as the US, UK, Asia … etc). Incorporate what you've learned this week's lessons and discuss the 'ethical, legal, and social issues' (ELSI) that have or have not been considered in this current news on newborn screening (NBS). What would be your recommendations?
OR1. You can share the new, 'surprising' information you learned2. Ask a question that needs additional clarification, 3. Share a news link relevant to the discussion. 4. Reply to another student's comment.