[arista]

Originally Posted by Ammi

….handed over to our government who would struggle with the power of ordering a Saturday evening take-away…

Sure
Labour are Legit
they won this last general election.


In 4 years, it could be PM Farage

[Glenn.]

Originally Posted by Kate!

Far from me pearl clutching while everyone sides with you as you seem to think is the case, I'm actually the one talking commone sense and as you can see people are agreeing with me. Not you.

It’s telling that you’re more obsessed with collecting ‘likes’ from the forum than actually understanding the issue. We’re talking about screening…information…not forcing treatments

[Kate!]

Originally Posted by Glenn.

It’s telling that you’re more obsessed with collecting ‘likes’ from the forum than actually understanding the issue. We’re talking about screening…information…not forcing treatments

Who says I am? You? Please yourself. Nobody else thinks that so I'm not arsed. And treatments would be forced as I myself have been made to take statins against my wishes because I have heart disease history in the family.

[Glenn.]

Originally Posted by Kate!

Who says I am? You? Please yourself. Nobody else thinks that so I'm not arsed. And treatments would be forced as I myself have been made to take statins against my wishes because I have heart disease history in the family.

That’s exactly the point.. your experience doesn’t automatically apply to everyone else, and screening doesn’t ‘force’ treatments. It gives people information. What they do with it is a choice, not an obligation.

If you felt pushed into statins, that’s a conversation between you and your doctor. But making it sound like screening = forcing meds for every child is misleading at best

[Kate!]

Originally Posted by Glenn.

That’s exactly the point.. your experience doesn’t automatically apply to everyone else, and screening doesn’t ‘force’ treatments. It gives people information. What they do with it is a choice, not an obligation.

If you felt pushed into statins, that’s a conversation between you and your doctor. But making it sound like screening = forcing meds for every child is misleading at best

As usual...its me in particular you take issue with in any thread, you never disagree with others who have similar concerns as several have voiced in here. You respond out of personal dislike and to put me down. You can't help yourself. I won't respond to you any further in this thread I'm having a day out at a train gala.

[Livia]

How long before the police have access to this data? Then, like magic, every crime could be solved immediately.

Couldn't happen though, could it. Of course not.....

[Kate!]

Originally Posted by Livia

How long before the police have access to this data? Then, like magic, every crime could be solved immediately.

Couldn't happen though, could it. Of course not.....

Yet another viable concern. Well said.

[Glenn.]

Originally Posted by Kate!

As usual...its me in particular you take issue with in any thread, you never disagree with others who have similar concerns as several have voiced in here. You respond out of personal dislike and to put me down. You can't help yourself. I won't respond to you any further in this thread I'm having a day out at a train gala.

I’m the only one you’ve replied to in the thread.

Of course it’s ‘personal’ when you’re called out, it’s always about you, isn’t it? The moment you run out of actual arguments, it’s ‘you’re picking on me‘ bore off.

[arista]

Originally Posted by Livia

How long before the police have access to this data? Then, like magic, every crime could be solved immediately.

Couldn't happen though, could it. Of course not.....

Police are not needing the data

Do not upset this fella anymore

[Livia]

Originally Posted by arista

Police are not needing the data

Do not upset this fellaa anymore

They don't need it [I]now.[I] but how long before someone says hey guys, I've got a great idea...

[Mystic Mock]

Originally Posted by bots

i can see a future where today's children are forced to accept treatment or they will lose future benefits, and that is just one thought. With the advances in AI, future generations are going to be targeted based on their genetics in all sorts of ways. Take it to its logical end point and it is like nazi's generating the super race.

Can people really sit here and say they trust the government and corporations and the wealthy to look after the publics interests

My answer is no.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by bots

i can see a future where today's children are forced to accept treatment or they will lose future benefits, and that is just one thought. With the advances in AI, future generations are going to be targeted based on their genetics in all sorts of ways. Take it to its logical end point and it is like nazi's generating the super race.

Can people really sit here and say they trust the government and corporations and the wealthy to look after the publics interests

I'm with @Mystic Mock. I'm afraid it's a no from me...

[AnnieK]

Would these be mandatory samples taken or would it be a choice for the parents?

[Kate!]

Originally Posted by AnnieK

Would these be mandatory samples taken or would it be a choice for the parents?

I think mandatory Annie. I'm very against it.

[Glenn.]

Originally Posted by AnnieK

Would these be mandatory samples taken or would it be a choice for the parents?

Right now every baby gets the heel‑prick test (9 serious conditions like sickle cell and cystic fibrosis). It’s been around forever, and it’s highly recommended, but it’s NOT mandatory. You can say no if you want.

The new DNA genome screening (testing for 200+ rare conditions) is still in trials. It’s optional, you have to give permission, and it’s NOT replacing the heel‑prick. It won’t be forced on anyone, now or in the future.

[Vicky.]

I hated the heel prick thing..felt guilty for causing them pain

[Glenn.]

Necessary though right?

[Vicky.]

Oh yea I wouldn't have declined it, it's important.

[bots]

Originally Posted by Glenn.

Right now every baby gets the heel‑prick test (9 serious conditions like sickle cell and cystic fibrosis). It’s been around forever, and it’s highly recommended, but it’s NOT mandatory. You can say no if you want.

The new DNA genome screening (testing for 200+ rare conditions) is still in trials. It’s optional, you have to give permission, and it’s NOT replacing the heel‑prick. It won’t be forced on anyone, now or in the future.

are you usually accepting of everything you hear from the government, or do you just find them absolutely trustworthy on this?

[AnnieK]

I thought it was optional....i couldn't remember if I had to give consent for the heel orick when my son was born, it's been a long time.

I think I'd still consent, forwarded is forarmed and all that

[Livia]

And we all trust that our children's stored dna information will be kept safe or destroyed and never used for anything aside from its original use? We all have confidence in the NHS and whichever government is in charge? Because I'm not sure and would need to know a lot more about it.

[Liam-]

Jesus Christ, this forum is becoming more like a conspiracy theorist website by the day, how an announcement that babies will be screened for any future medical issues they could find evidence of, to help streamline any future treatment, has descended into utter madness about forcing people to do treatments they don’t want or need or to have tracking chips implanted, genuinely reads like insanity

[bots]

People should ask questions any time data is collected on them or their family. It will be used against them in the end

[Glenn.]

Originally Posted by bots

are you usually accepting of everything you hear from the government, or do you just find them absolutely trustworthy on this?

I wouldn’t say I blindly trust the government on everything, far from it. But when it comes to this, I just think it’s worth looking at what’s best for the baby. We’re talking about spotting serious or rare conditions early, things that could be treated or managed if you knew about them from the start.

It’s not about accepting every word from the government, it’s about making sure we don’t lose a child to something we could have caught much, much earlier. In this case, that just feels like the safer, smarter option.

[Kate!]

Originally Posted by bots

People should ask questions any time data is collected on them or their family. It will be used against them in the end

Absolutely.