I saw this Dilbert cartoon by Scott Adams a few weeks ago and thought it was a funny, extreme take on employers researching job applicants via online Web sites such as social networks or drug/DNA tests. Click on the cropped image to see the full cartoon.

TwinCities.com reports on a case concerning the storage of newborn babies’ blood in Minnesota. I’ve written before about the unauthorized or unknowing retention and use of babies’ blood samples for purposes other than disease screening. The Washington Post has written about the ethics and privacy issues when children’s medical data is collected and retained without parents’ knowledge or consent. In mid-2010, Texas announced that, as part of a lawsuit settlement agreement, it would destroy five million blood samples taken from babies and used for research without their parents’ consent. The blood was originally gathered to screen for birth defects. Privacy issues connected to newborns’ blood samples have been raised internationally, as well. In New Zealand, the Privacy Commissioner warned against expanding the use of such genetic data beyond disease testing, noting DNA is the “ultimate marker of identity.” A Tel Aviv University researcher’s article in Science said we don’t know the future privacy or civil liberty implications of distributing children’s genetic data.

TwinCities.com reports:

Adding to a national debate that pits privacy concerns against medical researchers, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that a lower court must reconsider a challenge to the state Health Department’s practice of storing blood samples from newborns indefinitely.

Attorneys for plaintiffs in the case said the ruling means the Health Department might be forced to destroy nearly 1 million blood samples that researchers have drawn on for limited medical research purposes since 1997. [...] Read more »

The Associated Press reports that police across the country are raising questions about the privacy of their DNA data:

When police in southern Louisiana were investigating the deaths of eight women in 2009, the sophistication of the crimes set off rumors that the serial killer was a police officer _ speculation that became so pervasive that officials ordered DNA testing of law enforcement personnel to rule it out. All local officers agreed to the testing and were eliminated as suspects, but the killer remains at large, said Jefferson Davis Parish Sheriff Ricky Edwards.

Having officers’ DNA samples on file is important for saving time in investigations and fending off doubt about evidence at trials because it allows authorities to identify unknown genetic material found at crime scenes, Edwards and other police and crime lab officials say.

Police in other parts of the country, however, are not as willing to hand over their DNA. Rank-and-file police from Connecticut to Chicago to Los Angeles have opposed what some experts say is a slowly emerging trend in the U.S. to collect officers’ DNA. [...] Read more »

The Tennessean reports on the issue of employee medical privacy:

Instead of waiting to pick up the tab when someone gets sick, more employers now expect their workers to be engaged in staying healthy. They want workers to get annual physicals, know whether they have diabetes, hypertension or high cholesterol and then take actions to control the conditions.

Next year, one third of employers in the United States plan to reward or penalize workers depending upon their commitment to improving their health. That’s a significant jump compared with just 7 percent in 2011, according to a survey commissioned by the National Business Group on Health. [...]

While insurance companies with familiar names may administer health coverage, they don’t pay the bills. The employers do. “They literally write checks to the medical claims out of their general assets,” [said Helen Darling, president of the National Business Group on Health, a nonprofit organization whose members provide coverage for more than 55 million Americans.] Read more »

Last week, California Gov. Jerry Brown (D) signed SB 559, the California Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (CalGINA) (pdf). The legislation builds on the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110-233). GINA, which was signed in May 2008 by President Bush, restricts the collection and use of genetic information in a number of ways. GINA prohibits health insurance providers and employers from requiring genetic testing. Genetic data cannot be used to determine insurance premiums, eligibility for insurance, or employment.

CalGINA notes:

(b) Genetic testing can allow individuals to take steps to reduce the likelihood that they will contract a particular disorder. New knowledge about genetics may allow for the development of better therapies that are more effective against disease or have fewer side effects than current treatments. These rapid advances promise significant medical progress, but also give rise to the potential for misuse of genetic information to discriminate. [...] Read more »

The Times of India reports on a movement in the country to make privacy a fundamental right:

The law ministry is working on a proposal to make right to privacy a fundamental right in the Indian Constitution. [...]

“We are working on making right to privacy a fundamental right. It is likely to be tabled in the monsoon session of Parliament. However, it’s difficult to commit the timeframe,” law minister Veerappa Moily said.

The right to privacy would include the right to confidentiality of communication, confidentiality of private or family life, protection of his honour and good name, protection from search, detention or exposure of lawful communication between individuals, privacy from surveillance, confidentiality of banking, financial, medical and legal information, protection from identity theft of various kinds, protection of use of a person’s photographs, fingerprints, DNA samples and other samples taken at police stations and other places and protection of data relating to individual. [...] Read more »