https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/nov/14/egg-and-sperm-donors-to-lose-right-to-anonymity-at-birth-under-proposed-laws
Presumably the donors expected to remain anonymous when they donated, so
how can that anonymity be removed retrospectively? It's like reneging on
a contract, or retrospective legislation, which is generally thought to
be a bad idea, even if it isn't actually unconstitutional.
Well, they've done it once, when they allowed adults to see who donated
sperm to make them, so I suppose they think it's all right to do it again.
=======================================================================
And what about all those agreements not to share medical data with
commercial entities? Can this all be changed and watered down?
"Private UK health data donated for medical research shared with
insurance companies" https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/nov/12/private-uk-health-data-donated-medical-research-shared-insurance-companies
"Observer investigation reveals UK Biobank opened its biomedical
database to insurance firms despite pledge it would not do so"
"The data was provided to insurance consultancy and tech firms for
projects to create digital tools that help insurers predict a person’s
risk of getting a chronic disease."
That might be a good cause, but the insurance companies are doing it for commercial, not public health reasons.
Perhaps, in future, we shall have to submit to DNA testing, or complex
"life style" surveys before we are given life or medical based insurance.
And what if they decide that people always lie about what they drink,
eat or do?
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/nov/14/egg-and-sperm-donors-to-lose-right-to-anonymity-at-birth-under-proposed-laws
Presumably the donors expected to remain anonymous when they donated, so
how can that anonymity be removed retrospectively? It's like reneging on
a contract, or retrospective legislation, which is generally thought to
be a bad idea, even if it isn't actually unconstitutional.
Well, they've done it once, when they allowed adults to see who donated
sperm to make them, so I suppose they think it's all right to do it again.
=======================================================================
And what about all those agreements not to share medical data with
commercial entities? Can this all be changed and watered down?
"Private UK health data donated for medical research shared with
insurance companies" https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/nov/12/private-uk-health-data-donated-medical-research-shared-insurance-companies
"Observer investigation reveals UK Biobank opened its biomedical
database to insurance firms despite pledge it would not do so"
"The data was provided to insurance consultancy and tech firms for
projects to create digital tools that help insurers predict a person’s
risk of getting a chronic disease."
That might be a good cause, but the insurance companies are doing it for commercial, not public health reasons.
Perhaps, in future, we shall have to submit to DNA testing, or complex
"life style" surveys before we are given life or medical based insurance.
And what if they decide that people always lie about what they drink,
eat or do?
On 14 Nov 2023 at 17:20:25 GMT, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/nov/14/egg-and-sperm-donors-to-lose-right-to-anonymity-at-birth-under-proposed-laws
Presumably the donors expected to remain anonymous when they donated, so
how can that anonymity be removed retrospectively? It's like reneging on
a contract, or retrospective legislation, which is generally thought to
be a bad idea, even if it isn't actually unconstitutional.
Well, they've done it once, when they allowed adults to see who donated
sperm to make them, so I suppose they think it's all right to do it again.
As I read it, only those donating after the new rules come into effect will be
affected. But, as they say, private DNA tests can often circumvent anonymity anyway, even for donors who were promised lifelong anonymity.
=======================================================================
And what about all those agreements not to share medical data with
commercial entities? Can this all be changed and watered down?
"Private UK health data donated for medical research shared with
insurance companies"
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/nov/12/private-uk-health-data-donated-medical-research-shared-insurance-companies
"Observer investigation reveals UK Biobank opened its biomedical
database to insurance firms despite pledge it would not do so"
That could have been predicted. And there is no law in the US to stop them sharing with other companies, for money. Perhaps after Brexit we will revise data protection here too? Already the protection of data transferred to the US by firms here has had its protection significantly weakened. I haven't got the reference, and I may have just seen proposals before the legislation.
"The data was provided to insurance consultancy and tech firms for
projects to create digital tools that help insurers predict a person’s
risk of getting a chronic disease."
That might be a good cause, but the insurance companies are doing it for
commercial, not public health reasons.
Perhaps, in future, we shall have to submit to DNA testing, or complex
"life style" surveys before we are given life or medical based insurance.
And what if they decide that people always lie about what they drink,
eat or do?
Unless the insurers are statutorily barred from doing so they will probably want a DNA sample from customers and use the Biobank data to set personal premium rates. One of this little issues where I actually liked the EU's policy.
On 14/11/2023 17:40, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 14 Nov 2023 at 17:20:25 GMT, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote: >>
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/nov/14/egg-and-sperm-donors-to-lose-right-to-anonymity-at-birth-under-proposed-lawsAs I read it, only those donating after the new rules come into effect will be
Presumably the donors expected to remain anonymous when they donated, so >>> how can that anonymity be removed retrospectively? It's like reneging on >>> a contract, or retrospective legislation, which is generally thought to
be a bad idea, even if it isn't actually unconstitutional.
Well, they've done it once, when they allowed adults to see who donated
sperm to make them, so I suppose they think it's all right to do it again. >>
affected. But, as they say, private DNA tests can often circumvent anonymity >> anyway, even for donors who were promised lifelong anonymity.
That's simply not true. And it wasn't in the case of the previous change, which
only applied to offspring when they were 18.
Private DNA tests are only relevant if the donors are DNA tested,
and others get
hold of the results.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 56:04:13 |
| Calls: | 6,712 |
| Files: | 12,243 |
| Messages: | 5,355,474 |