Mandatory DNA Testing at Birth ?

iptba

If more people knew their correct fathers/did not have wrong information, it would reduce the chances of half-sisters/brothers inadvertently marrying.

metrovelvet

How are you going to apply manditory testing to men who arent around?

iguana

metrovelvet wrote: »

How are you going to apply manditory testing to men who arent around?

It would be a measure to protect men and children from forming a false relationship. If the man isn't around he wouldn't be forming a relationship with the child anyway. If he came back on the scene or is pursued for maintenance a DNA test could be done then.

The test wouldn't be mandatory anyway, you can no more force a man to do a test than you can a woman. It would be "opt out" and any man who chose not to do the test could still claim paternity of he and the mother were in agreement that he is the father. (There could possibly be moral/religious reasons that some people would choose not to do the test but still claim paternity.) It's an offered protection, men can refuse the option if they wish.

metrovelvet

iguana wrote: »

It would be a measure to protect men and children from forming a false relationship. If the man isn't around he wouldn't be forming a relationship with the child anyway. If he came back on the scene or is pursued for maintenance a DNA test could be done then.

The test wouldn't be mandatory anyway, you can no more force a man to do a test than you can a woman. It would be "opt out" and any man who chose not to do the test could still claim paternity of he and the mother were in agreement that he is the father. (There could possibly be moral/religious reasons that some people would choose not to do the test but still claim paternity.) It's an offered protection, men can refuse the option if they wish.

What is the difference between that system and the one in place already?

You cant force anyone to take any kind of medical treatment. Everyone has the right to refuse.

CDfm

metrovelvet wrote: »

How are you going to apply manditory testing to men who arent around?

while it can be used to prove paternity -it also is the ultimate way to disprove paternity.

if you are not the father its lot cheaper than maintenence.

metrovelvet wrote: »

You cant force anyone to take any kind of medical treatment. Everyone has the right to refuse.

a woman should not be allowed claim a guy is a father and refuse to take the test.

no test -no maintenence should be the rule and its not a nedical treatment its a paternity test where a man has doubts and it is the best way to eliminate those doubts.

it should be as automatic as a tv licence

iguana

metrovelvet wrote: »

What is the difference between that system and the one in place already?

You cant force anyone to take any kind of medical treatment. Everyone has the right to refuse.

The paternity test would be routine, everyone would have it done (as early as possible) unless they specifically choose not to. Most people tend to just do whatever is routine. It's why countries with opt out donor programmes have less organ shortages than countries with opt in programmes.

Scanlas The 2nd

iguana wrote: »

I do believe that in the vast, vast majority of cases the mother is absolutely telling the truth.

Have you not seen any of the stats posted?

At a very minimum 1 in 60 children have different social and biological fathers.

Its thought to be 1 in 30 by most recent studies these days.

In some places its 1 in 3.

Roughly 30% of paternity tests come back negative.

metrovelvet

CDfm wrote: »

while it can be used to prove paternity -it also is the ultimate way to disprove paternity.

if you are not the father its lot cheaper than maintenence.



a woman should not be allowed claim a guy is a father and refuse to take the test.

no test -no maintenence should be the rule and its not a nedical treatment its a paternity test where a man has doubts and it is the best way to eliminate those doubts.

This is already in place in the courts. It is not her doctors place to get involved with maintenance and legal issues around paternity. Its inappropriate.

CDfm wrote: »

it should be as automatic as a tv licence

The tv licence shouldnt be automatic in the first place.

metrovelvet

iguana wrote: »

The paternity test would be routine, everyone would have it done (as early as possible) unless they specifically choose not to. Most people tend to just do whatever is routine. It's why countries with opt out donor programmes have less organ shortages than countries with opt in programmes.

And then what happens with the results? Do they get sent in with the birthcert forms?

I dont think this is a healthcare provider's palce to do this. I think it crosses a line. Even if it was done in the hospital, the results are still confidential and have to be treated as such as its HER doctor,HER records. The putative father would have no access to them anyway.

If the records of birth and death required one before the birthcert was officially sent out, that is a different scenario and far more appropriate.

G-Money

I think that seeing there seems to be legal options available if a guy doesn't pay maintenance, there should be some form of due diligence/checks put in place to make sure a guy isn't being duped into unknowingly fathering a child that's not actually his.

I mean certain jobs in the security forces require you to undergo very thorough and extensive background checks as per normal. In theory as well, to check paternity, wouldn't the father need to be provide some sort of DNA sample in order for them to test it and wouldn't he therefore be entitled to know the result. There's not much point having paternity tests if the woman can just decide she doesn't want them known. If that were the case, it would be back to square one.

iguana

grandmaster wrote: »

There's not much point having paternity tests if the woman can just decide she doesn't want them known. If that were the case, it would be back to square one.

Who suggested the woman could choose not to have it known? The point I made is that prenatal testing can't happen as the foetal DNA is only present in the mother's blood and nobody can force her to give her blood up for testing if she doesn't want to. You can't hold her down and draw her blood out if she doesn't want that to happen. In that case the father would have to wait until the baby is born to have the test taken because then all that would be needed (apart from the father's sample) is a cheek swab from the baby.

Of course the father would know the results, the point of the testing is to automatically confirm paternity so he never has to doubt.

G-Money

iguana wrote: »

Who suggested the woman could choose not to have it known? The point I made is that prenatal testing can't happen as the foetal DNA is only present in the mother's blood and nobody can force her to give her blood up for testing if she doesn't want to. You can't hold her down and draw her blood out if she doesn't want that to happen. In that case the father would have to wait until the baby is born to have the test taken because then all that would be needed (apart from the father's sample) is a cheek swab from the baby.

Of course the father would know the results, the point of the testing is to automatically confirm paternity so he never has to doubt.

I think I mis-read a previous post

CDfm

metrovelvet wrote: »

This is already in place in the courts. It is not her doctors place to get involved with maintenance and legal issues around paternity. Its inappropriate.

eh -it has nothing to do with her doctors.

its a father establishing paternity of a child someone else claims is his. its matching the fathers and childs dna for certainty. nothing more -nothing less.

when the child is born -it does not affect the mother in any way -all it does is use science to test her claim on a best evidence.

i cant see why that would matter if the woman is telling the truth. if it was part of normal procedures there would be no stigma attached.

and if the wrong fathers name needed to be removed from the birth cert -well it wasnt the guys child so had no reason to be there in the first place. that is only fair.

G-Money

I'd suggest as well that if a woman did trick a guy into believing he was the father of her child, he should be entitled to any statutory maintenance fee's to be repaid to him, by her.

dubhthach

Regarding cost. I just did a genetic swab so that I could get my Y-Chromosome sequenced for 67-markers for $268 dollars (familytreedna). Of course this isn't applicable in this case as there is a daughter. But you can do autosomal tests as well to test other Chromosomes and it isn't that expensive from what I see.

As for my case I'm doing it for genealogical purposes it's interesting to see where ones come from on a genetic level given that Y-Chromosome is passed down basically unchanged (apart from mutations on certain alleles over time) on the male line.

metrovelvet

CDfm wrote: »

eh -it has nothing to do with her doctors.

its a father establishing paternity of a child someone else claims is his. its matching the fathers and childs dna for certainty. nothing more -nothing less.

when the child is born -it does not affect the mother in any way -all it does is use science to test her claim on a best evidence.

i cant see why that would matter if the woman is telling the truth. if it was part of normal procedures there would be no stigma attached.

and if the wrong fathers name needed to be removed from the birth cert -well it wasnt the guys child so had no reason to be there in the first place. that is only fair.

Because it breaks doctor patient confidentiality.

seamus

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

....
In some places its 1 in 3.
Roughly 30% of paternity tests come back negative.

This is a tough one to call, people are more likely to get a paternity test because they have doubts over their child. It's not something routine. So the incidence of negative results in paternity test statistics is likely to be significantly higher than in the general population.
(Ah, I see Wibbs caught this already)

grandmaster wrote: »

I'd suggest as well that if a woman did trick a guy into believing he was the father of her child, he should be entitled to any statutory maintenance fee's to be repaid to him, by her.

Again, the welfare of the child needs to be considered here. I'm all for getting tough on this kind of thing, but if such a judgement condemns a women to raising a child in abject poverty, then we're punishing the child for the sins of the mother.

Intent is also very important, it would have to be shown that the mother deceived the father, or at the very least that the mother was aware the child may not belong to the man she called the father and that man was not aware of this possibility.

CDfm

metrovelvet wrote: »

Because it breaks doctor patient confidentiality.

how does it do that -i just dont see it.

its a guy having his dna and his putatative childs dna tested to confirm paternity or not as the case maybe.

mother doctor patient confidentiality has nothing to do with it

why on earth does the mothers doctor even need to be involved

and even if it did the issue of establishing paternity should out weigh the confidentiality issue.

iptba

seamus wrote: »

Intent is also very important, it would have to be shown that the mother deceived the father, or at the very least that the mother was aware the child may not belong to the man she called the father and that man was not aware of this possibility.

The mother should have a very good idea the man (man #1) might not be the father as in the cases where man #1 was not the father, she would have had to slept with another man by definition.

seamus

iptba wrote: »

The mother should have a very good idea the man (man #1) might not be the father as in the cases where man #1 was not the father, she would have had to slept with another man by definition.

You would be appalled at the ignorance out there in relation to fertility and reproduction. There would be plenty of cases where the woman genuinely believed that the "other guy" couldn't possibly be the father.

kangaroo

seamus wrote: »

You would be appalled at the ignorance out there in relation to fertility and reproduction. There would be plenty of cases where the woman genuinely believed that the "other guy" couldn't possibly be the father.

If this is the case, all the more reason for DNA testing to be the norm (with men having the option of opting out if they want).

CDfm

seamus wrote: »

Again, the welfare of the child needs to be considered here. I'm all for getting tough on this kind of thing, but if such a judgement condemns a women to raising a child in abject poverty, then we're punishing the child for the sins of the mother.

and how is this the guys problem -it isnt. The welfare of the alleged father is important here. As its all private how is the child anyway affected.

Intent is also very important, it would have to be shown that the mother deceived the father, or at the very least that the mother was aware the child may not belong to the man she called the father and that man was not aware of this possibility.

Trust is 0 or 100% and most guys do want to get involved with their children.

Of course, people do get caught up in all kinds of crap. Malicious gossip, jealousy etc can cause doubt and something like a dna test can get rid of all that in a way nothing else can.

seamus wrote: »

You would be appalled at the ignorance out there in relation to fertility and reproduction. There would be plenty of cases where the woman genuinely believed that the "other guy" couldn't possibly be the father.

Maybe so-but I fail to see how it is the guys problem. Intentionally or not , the guy gets hurt by it.

I know one guy who discovered he was not the father of his daughter in Holles Street after his "daughter" gave birth.

You are asking us to believe that women dont know where babies come from.

iguana

metrovelvet wrote: »

What is the difference between that system and the one in place already?

I know I answered this already but I thought of a better answer.;)

If I was pregnant and my husband said he wanted a DNA test I would be extremely hurt and seriously píssed off. It would be a hard knock for our marriage that I'd struggle to get past because it would mean that he didn't trust me. However if it was just what happened to everyone I would just do it and think it was a good idea to protect the men who were being fooled into fatherhood.

This is because it wouldn't be my husband questioning my faithfulness, it wouldn't be my activities or word being questioned. It's just a step to protect those who needed it in the same way as routine prenatal HIV and other STD tests are carried out.

Sometimes everyone has to be a little inconvenienced in order to protect the few who need it.

CDfm

iguana wrote: »

I know I answered this already but I thought of a better answer.;)

If I was pregnant and my husband said he wanted a DNA test I would be extremely hurt and seriously píssed off. It would be a hard knock for our marriage that I'd struggle to get past because it would mean that he didn't trust me. However if it was just what happened to everyone I would just do it and think it was a good idea to protect the men who were being fooled into fatherhood.

This is because it wouldn't be my husband questioning my faithfulness, it wouldn't be my activities or word being questioned. It's just a step to protect those who needed it in the same way as routine prenatal HIV and other STD tests are carried out.

Sometimes everyone has to be a little inconvenienced in order to protect the few who need it.

Very nicely put.

There are lots of things that can cause distrust in life. Of course, in normal situations it doesnt happen. Even stress can cause distrust.

If everyone is having it and its normal is a great way to look at it. The people who find themselves in that situation could be the type of people who engage in risky behavior all the time anyway.

Its not all doom and gloom. Denying paternity and maintenence probs would be a thing of the past.

metrovelvet

iguana wrote: »

I know I answered this already but I thought of a better answer.;)

If I was pregnant and my husband said he wanted a DNA test I would be extremely hurt and seriously píssed off. It would be a hard knock for our marriage that I'd struggle to get past because it would mean that he didn't trust me. However if it was just what happened to everyone I would just do it and think it was a good idea to protect the men who were being fooled into fatherhood.

This is because it wouldn't be my husband questioning my faithfulness, it wouldn't be my activities or word being questioned. It's just a step to protect those who needed it in the same way as routine prenatal HIV and other STD tests are carried out.

Sometimes everyone has to be a little inconvenienced in order to protect the few who need it.

I see what you are saying and that's a good point. But I still dont think its the place for the hospital to do it at birth. It has nothing to do with healthcare.

If the records of birth and death required proof, rather than taking the word of the two parents and a cert from a lab sufficed as proof, this makes much more legal and administrative sense.

The plus side of doing it at birth is that it doesnt allow reluctant father's to use the dna paternity test as a procrastination tool for avoiding their responsibilities. I would say a large majority of men who ask for dna tests are doing exactly that.

seamus

CDfm wrote: »

and how is this the guys problem -it isnt. The welfare of the alleged father is important here. As its all private how is the child anyway affected.

Because presumably the mother will become the primary/sole care giver of the child and if you force her to have to repay the debt, the child may suffer. Obviously this is means dependent. It's the guy's problem because he's been landed in this situation through bad luck. It's not nice, but **** happens. Sometimes we all get landed with problems that we didn't create.

I would rank the welfare of the child above the compensation of the aggrieved party - as with any other case, if the mother can't afford to pay, she won't be forced to.

You are asking us to believe that women dont know where babies come from.

*Some* women and some men. All you have to do is watch all those crappy TV talk shows for a week to discover the astounding level of ignorance out there. You know all the myths that teenagers have around pregnancy - how you can't get pregnant on the first go, how you can't get pregnant standing up? There are women in their 20s and 30s who still believe these things. Just as there is no ceiling in the amount of knowledge you can have, there is no floor in the level of ignorance someone can have.

Imagine that a woman has sex with two men within the space of a week and a pregnancy results. One of them was her first time having sex. Is it really that hard to believe that she would be 100% certain that the first guy couldn't possibly be the father because it was her first time? That's not an unbelieveable scenario, that's reality.

metrovelvet

I wonder how many people here who advocate automatic dna testing on the grounds that women cant be trusted will ask their putative fathers for a sample.

iguana

seamus wrote: »

*Some* women and some men. All you have to do is watch all those crappy TV talk shows for a week to discover the astounding level of ignorance out there. You know all the myths that teenagers have around pregnancy - how you can't get pregnant on the first go, how you can't get pregnant standing up? There are women in their 20s and 30s who still believe these things.

And men. I went out with a guy many years ago who thought women could get pregnant if they swallowed while giving a blow job. He thought that as whatever you eat goes to your stomach and babies grow in the stomach that swallowed sperm can make a baby. He was 25 and not stupid, just really badly educated.

CDfm

iguana wrote: »

And men. I went out with a guy many years ago who thought women could get pregnant if they swallowed while giving a blow job. He thought that as whatever you eat goes to your stomach and babies grow in the stomach that swallowed sperm can make a baby. He was 25 and not stupid, just really badly educated.

LOL -you put him straight on that I hope

iguana

CDfm wrote: »

LOL -you put him straight on that I hope

I tried, but I'm not sure he believed me.:(