Hospital keeps secret DNA File

BaconZombie

Hospital keeps secret DNA file
Children’s University hospital in Temple Street is under investigation by the Data Protection Commissioner

Dublin hospital kept DNA file on > 1.5m newborns (from “heel prick tests”)

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article6968561.ece

Praetorian Saighdiuir

Not so secret anymore!

RHunce

Dublin eh?

Surprise sur-****ing-prise

Rented Mule

1.5 million pricks in Dublin ?

Who'da thunk it ?

Sheeps

This is shocking news and I can't go on living now that I've heard that for the passed 23 years a sample of my DNA has been kept in a database.

biko

Actually easier that way. When they're older it'll be easier to find and jail them.

Cliona99

Creepy, disturbing and illegal. And no-one's talking about it, it's weird. All I've heard about since Christmas is the weather and the "national grit crisis".

amacachi

I don't find it "creepy", just stupid. How much most it have to store it all when the hospitals are broke?
Would it have been legal for them to keep the results without names for the purposes on future studies? Really don't get why they didn't just do that.

testicle

Who cares?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

I thought you guys would all be in favour of this? So that when the little scumbag goes and robs your car, all you have to do is nip down Temple Street and there you go - proof.

Captain Darling

testicle wrote: »

Who cares?

You could have given alot more to a dna thread with a username like that. :P:P

MaybeLogic

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

I thought you guys would all be in favour of this? So that when the little scumbag goes and robs your car, all you have to do is nip down Temple Street and there you go - proof.

...you could do the same if you wanted to frame said scummer...

ya-ba-da-ba-doo

diagnosed 1,815 disorders

Even though they should have asked, I'm not too angry.

Captain_Generic

MaybeLogic wrote: »

...you could do the same if you wanted to frame said scummer...

Unless you've been cloned and stole your own car

amacachi

ya-ba-da-ba-doo wrote: »

Even though they should have asked, I'm not too angry.

It's a test on newborn babies, it's not as if they need to hold onto the samples long-term, the DNA isn't going to change.

Mrmoe

When would this have been taken? Everything before 1984 was destroyed but how soon after you are born is the test done? i.e. is there a transition period between 1983 and 1984? I just want to get my facts straight for when I become righteously indignant for no apparent reason.

CrazyRabbit

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

I thought you guys would all be in favour of this? So that when the little scumbag goes and robs your car, all you have to do is nip down Temple Street and there you go - proof.

And will you be happy when you try to get health insurance and they charge you 3 times the average premium because you are predisposed to certain illnesses?

Or what if you don't get a certain job because the employer found some indicator in your DNA that they didn't like?

DNA is a very very personal thing, and as our understanding of each gene grows, it can potentially become very damaging to you.

Captain Darling

CrazyRabbit wrote: »

And will you be happy when you try to get health insurance and they charge you 3 times the average premium because you are predisposed to certain illnesses?

Or what if you don't get a certain job because the employer found some indicator in your DNA that they didn't like?

DNA is a very very personal thing, and as our understanding of each gene grows, it can potentially become very damaging to you.

There's a huge sign off involved in any kind of DNA testing, so the manner in which they stock piled this information is scandalous.

Farming it out then for surveys and such like is even worse.

Cliona99

ya-ba-da-ba-doo wrote: »

Even though they should have asked, I'm not too angry.

They presumably dianosed these 1,815 disorders immediately. Why did they hold on to the samples?

My name is URL

Was this even reported here by RTE etc?

seclachi

What are the odds it wont get destroyed but used for profiling, would probably sound like too good an opportunity to pass up on !

SoWatchaWant

A DNA database isn't as as sinister as it sounds. They can do alot of good. Some people watch too much films.

amacachi

SoWatchaWant wrote: »

A DNA database isn't as as sinister as it sounds. They can do alot of good. Some people watch too much films.

I'd like to know what good that database was going to do when it was illegal and couldn't be used openly?

Mike 1972

CrazyRabbit wrote: »

And will you be happy when you try to get health insurance and they charge you 3 times the average premium because you are predisposed to certain illnesses?

Or what if you don't get a certain job because the employer found some indicator in your DNA that they didn't like?

Or when fascism takes hold in Ireland (any day now going by some of the other threads here :rolleyes:) and they want to identify who is Herrenvolk and who is Untermensch

CrazyRabbit

SoWatchaWant wrote: »

A DNA database isn't as as sinister as it sounds. They can do alot of good. Some people watch too much films.

You know, they thought they were doing a good thing when those scientists invented atomic fission. And I'm sure Alfred Noble has the best of intentions when he created dynamite.

The thing is, we are human, and therefore very good at using inventions in the most destructive and evil ways imaginable.

You have way too much fate in people.

stovelid

Rented Mule wrote: »

Who'da thunk it ?

People from the bogs?

partyatmygaff

Who cares? 1.5 Million people, they aren't going to specifically target a certain person's DNA and use it for some "malicious" reason. It's most likely being kept for research.

My name is URL

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Who cares? 1.5 Million people, they aren't going to specifically target a certain person's DNA and use it for some "malicious" reason. It's most likely being kept for research.

Research into what? At what point does research become used by 3rd parties?

As Crazy Rabbit said, it can show if you are predisposed to any ilness, and insurance companies etc could use that against you... even if you don't know about what genetics is

it's a touchy subject to say the least, I can't believe this is the first I heard of it though

phantom_lord

meh.

partyatmygaff

My name is URL wrote: »

Research into what? At what point does research become used by 3rd parties?

As Crazy Rabbit said, it can show if you are predisposed to any ilness, and insurance companies etc could use that against you... even if you don't know about what genetics is

it's a touchy subject to say the least, I can't believe this is the first I heard of it though

I doubt it would be legal for that information to be passed on to 3rd parties.

Shryke

partyatmygaff wrote: »

I doubt it would be legal for that information to be passed on to 3rd parties.

What they did wasn't very legal in the first place.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

CrazyRabbit wrote: »

And will you be happy when you try to get health insurance and they charge you 3 times the average premium because you are predisposed to certain illnesses?

Or what if you don't get a certain job because the employer found some indicator in your DNA that they didn't like?

DNA is a very very personal thing, and as our understanding of each gene grows, it can potentially become very damaging to you.

Hey, I don't even like the idea to start with - but it's the kind of keep-an-eye-in-that-one thing that most scared conservative types would like, which is why I thought it's go down well over there.

Prof.Badass

partyatmygaff wrote: »

I doubt it would be legal for that information to be passed on to 3rd parties.

Trusted employees sometimes give away information they shouldn't for money. Also this;

Shryke wrote: »

What they did wasn't very legal in the first place.

One obstacle to having a DNA database is the fact that getting DNA from all the citizens would be a huge undertaking. Well we've just removed that one for everyone under 25 (which includes me ). I hope they are made to destroy these samples (as was suggested in the article).

Quint

The only shocking thing here is that Run To The Hills isn't the OP

phantom_lord

vinylmesh wrote: »

One obstacle to having a DNA database is the fact that getting DNA from all the citizens would be a huge undertaking. Well we've just removed that one for everyone under 25 (which includes me ). I hope they are made to destroy these samples (as was suggested in the article).

what's wrong with having a dna database? surely it'd be very helpful in fighting crime?

brianthebard

Not happy about this at all at all.

lostexpectation

need a destroy my records campaign, ala countmeout

lostexpectation

phantom_lord wrote: »

what's wrong with having a dna database? surely it'd be very helpful in fighting crime?

when we have proper oversight ya can come back to us on that.

http://irishjournalist.blogspot.com/2009/12/monitoring-surveillance-intercepts-in.html

hooradiation

phantom_lord wrote: »

what's wrong with having a dna database? surely it'd be very helpful in fighting crime?

It's not as useful as movies would have you think, thanks to the methods used to match two DNA samples and the birthday problem


erm....I mean rabble rabble rabble scum rabble rabble things were better in my day rabble rabble crime is outta control!

humanji

hooradiation wrote: »

It's not as useful as movies would have you think, thanks to the methods used to match two DNA samples and the birthday problem


erm....I mean rabble rabble rabble scum rabble rabble things were better in my day rabble rabble crime is outta control!

Maybe I'm reading this wrong but I think that article may be blowign things out of purportion because it says:

A DUBLIN hospital has built a database containing the DNA of almost every person born in the country since 1984 without their knowledge in an apparent breach of data protection laws.

But then says:

The hospital has collected almost 2.8m samples since 1966 and diagnosed 1,815 disorders. Samples collected prior to 1984 were destroyed after being contaminated by water damage.

So since 1966 2.8m samples were taken, but all before 1984 were destroyed. So you'd assume there'd be a lot less than 2.8m, which is still hardly counts as "almost ever person born in the country".

Also, in any other country I'd be wary of this. But this being Ireland, I really wouldn't be surprised if it's a case of them not being arsed getting reid of them.

I'm not happy that they're being kept, but the story definitely is trying to make it out to be more sinister that it it.

hooradiation

humanji wrote: »

Maybe I'm reading this wrong but I think that article may be blowign things out of purportion because it says:



But then says:



So since 1966 2.8m samples were taken, but all before 1984 were destroyed. So you'd assume there'd be a lot less than 2.8m, which is still hardly counts as "almost ever person born in the country".

Also, in any other country I'd be wary of this. But this being Ireland, I really wouldn't be surprised if it's a case of them not being arsed getting reid of them.

I'm not happy that they're being kept, but the story definitely is trying to make it out to be more sinister that it it.

I don't care about the story, i was just pointing out that DNA profiling and databases aren't the panacea to crime people seem to think it is, given their inherent statistical problems.

lostexpectation

they have info for people 16 and younger, there a follow up article in the times, but its not online , it said they lost some computers with the data on, so maybe if blood samples were destroyed accidentally ,that may have some sort of 'digital' dna data still.

My name is URL

lol at how people don't seem to mind this but get worked up over youngsters throwing snowballs

hooradiation

My name is URL wrote: »

lol at how people don't seem to mind this but get worked up over youngsters throwing snowballs

That's because society is crumbling and if we had the DNA of everyone on file we could round up anyone with snowball throwing genes in their DNA, kill them and sterilize their parents for raising such a delinquent.

But you wouldn't care about that, up in your snowball proof ivory tower would you!

brianthebard

humanji wrote: »

Maybe I'm reading this wrong but I think that article may be blowign things out of purportion because it says:



But then says:



So since 1966 2.8m samples were taken, but all before 1984 were destroyed. So you'd assume there'd be a lot less than 2.8m, which is still hardly counts as "almost ever person born in the country".

If you read the part you bolded yourself you'd see it said 'born in the country since 1984'.

amacachi

Anyone else contacting their TD about this? Yet to notice it mentioned on RTE or anything.

phantom_lord

My name is URL wrote: »

lol at how people don't seem to mind this but get worked up over youngsters throwing snowballs

why should i care if they have a dna sample of mine?

Mike 1972

brianthebard wrote: »

in the country since 1984'.

Why does one hospital in Dublin have DNA samples for "the entire country" ?

Were other hospitals sending the stuff there for some reason or is it it just a general assumption that there is nothing outside of Dublin ?

My name is URL

phantom_lord wrote: »

why should i care if they have a dna sample of mine?

Well each to their own I suppose.. but I wouldn't be too keen (for example) on finding out that insurance companies were garnering info about my genetic make-up in order to determine what my premium is.. especially when I had no idea that a record of my DNA was been kept

there's a whole plethora of uses for your DNA.. not all of them would be of benefit to you

phantom_lord

there's a huge difference between the example you give and what actually is happening. i don't think having my dna on record affects me at all. if the database is used for research purposes and something good comes out of it then surely that's useful.

Mike 1972

phantom_lord wrote: »

if the database is used for research purposes and something good comes out of it then surely that's useful.

Thats a rather big "if" is it not ?