SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
A few weeks into sixth grade, Colman Chadam had to leave school because of his DNA.
The situation, odd as it may sound, played out like this. Colman has genetic markers for cystic fibrosis, and kids with the inherited lung disease can't be near each other because they're vulnerable to contagious infections. Two siblings with cystic fibrosis also attended Colman's middle school in Palo Alto, California in 2012. So Colman was out, even though he didn't actually have the disease, according to a lawsuit that his parents filed against the school district. The allegation? Genetic discrimination.
Yes, genetic discrimination. Get used to those two words together, because they're likely to become a lot more common. With DNA tests now cheap and readily available, the number of people getting tests has gone way up—along with the potential for discrimination based on the results. When Colman's school tried to transfer him based on his genetic status, the lawsuit alleges, the district violated the Americans With Disabilities Act and Colman's First Amendment right to privacy. "This is the test case," says the Chadam's lawyer, Stephen Jaffe.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by BsAtHome on Wednesday February 03 2016, @09:03PM
How did the school have access to the genetic profile of the pupil?
_That_ is the real question here.
(Score: 5, Informative) by VLM on Wednesday February 03 2016, @09:16PM
How did the school have access to the genetic profile of the pupil?
Its in the article, the parents were dumb enough to tell them. Like cops, don't tell them anything they don't need to know.
(Score: 1) by Rich26189 on Wednesday February 03 2016, @09:17PM
I don't know that the school has access to his genetic profile but, according to TFA, his parents disclosed that information to the school:
(Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday February 03 2016, @09:36PM
So it would seem that his parents violated his medical privacy.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by GungnirSniper on Wednesday February 03 2016, @09:56PM
Right. And by telling the school this info, had anyone gotten seriously ill or died from it, a litigious bastard could use that form to take the school for millions.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 4, Informative) by Freeman on Wednesday February 03 2016, @10:46PM
His parents didn't violate his medical privacy, because they are responsible for him. It's the same in that you don't violate your own medical privacy when you freely disclose information about yourself.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 03 2016, @11:55PM
Nonsense. His parents violated his medical privacy. It doesn't matter that they were responsible for him; it's still his privacy, as it pertains to him.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Friday February 05 2016, @05:57PM
You can think of it technically as a violation of his medical privacy, but according to the law his parents are responsible for him. The parents have the right to disclose his medical history to third parties without violating his rights according to the law. Most children aren't capable of making informed decisions and are protected under the law for good reason. Which is also why you can't make a legally binding agreement with a child without their parents' / legal guardians' consent.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by Whoever on Thursday February 04 2016, @03:51AM
And then the school told other parents. That's the real problem.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 03 2016, @09:18PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 03 2016, @09:42PM
Then why the hell were they asked that kind of information?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04 2016, @01:54PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 03 2016, @09:23PM
Parents 1 and 2 of kid 1 mentioned it to the school, who (IMHO) violated their duties in this regard and told parents 3, 4, 5 and 6 of kids 2 and 3 about kid 1 and they flipped out, forcing the school's hand. Sounds pretty straight forwards to me, the school was at fault for telling parents 3, 4, 5, and 6. Like your waitress telling the neighboring table you just told her you're HIV positive and they flip out.
(Score: 3, Funny) by wonkey_monkey on Wednesday February 03 2016, @10:20PM
parents 3, 4, 5 and 6 of kids 2 and 3
Kids 2 and 3 are siblings, so I have no idea what's going on in that house.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 03 2016, @10:37PM
> Like your waitress telling the neighboring table you just told her you're HIV positive and they flip out.
Not like that. Your waitress doesn't really have any responsibility to maintain your privacy, especially if you tell them something irrelevant to serving food. But a school has all kinds of responsibilities for the privacy and security of the children which attend - in loco parentis cuts both ways.