And none of this means 23&me has your best interests— or anything other than their profits— in mind providing this service, and believing otherwise is naive.

Sure someone could hack my doctors office but my doctor isn’t testing my iron levels in order to generate content so other people will come to see her.

It’s the same reason I don’t use Facebook— I don’t want to be someone’s unpaid content. 23&me just goes the step further to make you pay to be content.

Anonymous wrote:I feel for women who gave up babies for adoption, thinking they were making a private decision. An old friend of mine wanted nothing more than to put her pregnancy, delivery, and adoption far behind her. Her husband knows, but she never told her daughter. She hopes her first child has a wonderful life, but she has zero interest interest in getting to know her. Now she’s worried that her son or another relative will join one of these sites, linking her to the child she put up for adoption. It’s so complicated.

It's not a private decision. That was one of the horrible aspects of adoption in the baby scoop era. Adoption was about the adults involved, never the child. The child has a basic civil and biological right to know who his parents were, who he is related to, and the circumstances around his birth. Golden Retrievers come with more information.

The child's relatives also have a right to know who they are related to. They have a right to know who their siblings are. A child is not some shameful mistake someone can refile in a locked cabinet and pretend it didn't happen. Babies are not commodities or products.

To answer this post, yes, the child that was given up will be able to find the mother, the siblings, everyone, and vice versa. The people in question don't even need to take a test thenselves. It will be some third cousin and the ancillary public paper trail will lead right to the source.

Anonymous wrote:I feel for women who gave up babies for adoption, thinking they were making a private decision. An old friend of mine wanted nothing more than to put her pregnancy, delivery, and adoption far behind her. Her husband knows, but she never told her daughter. She hopes her first child has a wonderful life, but she has zero interest interest in getting to know her. Now she’s worried that her son or another relative will join one of these sites, linking her to the child she put up for adoption. It’s so complicated.

This is one of many reasons why abortion access is so important

I feel for women who gave up babies for adoption, thinking they were making a private decision. An old friend of mine wanted nothing more than to put her pregnancy, delivery, and adoption far behind her. Her husband knows, but she never told her daughter. She hopes her first child has a wonderful life, but she has zero interest interest in getting to know her. Now she’s worried that her son or another relative will join one of these sites, linking her to the child she put up for adoption. It’s so complicated.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not a chance I will ever give a private company my genetic information on purpose

3 of my siblings have and 2 of them also had extensive genetic testing. They encourage me to do the same. No thanks.

Then you have. You share their DNA.

Anonymous wrote:Pro - adding to knowledge, which is a good thing the majority of the time.

Con - giving up personal information about your predispositions to disease which could be used against you by insurance.

Nope, not a thing. It's already a thing with life insurance, though, but it has always been that way.

Anonymous wrote:It seems like they just serve to disrupt families.

No, they are designed to disrupt the patriarchal misogynistic religious secrets and lies of the past that shouldn't have happened.

Oh, and to see if you like cilantro or not. Or maybe a BRCA gene.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think people are too willing to give up genetic information to whatever use a company—which certainly doesn’t have your best interests in mind— wants to make of it. On the other hand if someone is genuinely well informed of the risks to their privacy they should go ahead if curious so I wouldn’t restrict those sorts of sites.

Revealing genetic and pertinent health information does have the consumer in mind. Thar is the information they need.

Having the consumer in mind is not the same as being for your best interests. It’s for profit. Your DNA is their content. If you want genetic testing to reveal pertinent health information, your doctor will do it and you will have the dual protections of doctor patient confidentiality and HIPPA. Neither applies to 23&me.

You are not connected to these kits, even your name is just your name and you'd have to be the only one with that name in the world. Or your name might not ever be associated. If you have a cousin, sibling, parent, child, who has run a kit, so have you. Your info is out there right now. Given even a third or fourth cousin, I would find you within an hour or less- even if you never did a test.

And, yes, your Dr's computerized and hand notes are far more at risk for hacking than any of these, with quite a bit of personal detail. Sorry.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pro - adding to knowledge, which is a good thing the majority of the time.

Con - giving up personal information about your predispositions to disease which could be used against you by insurance.

Nope, it can not be used against you in any way. There's literally no way it would ever affect insurance. Internet myth, they don't understand how it works.

You are incredibly naive and misinformed.

No, you are,sweetie. If insurance wants to deny you coverage based on your DNA, they will ask you for your DNA. Your DNA in any of these programs is not connected to you in any way. Your actual name doesn't need to be associated with it. This idea that the govt or Blue Cross is going to hack a dna database to figure out who YOU are is ludicrous and probably the most stupid way to figure it out. If the want it, and it becomes legal to deny coverage, they don't need to sneak around! They will get it- from you. If it's not legal to do so, they can't deny you anything. It's that simple.
Life insurance, btw, DOES, take a blood sample! Yes! To find out your DNA and possibly refuse you. Yep! So, that's how it would be. It's not a secret clandestine issue. You can be denied a lot but no one needs to hack something. Why not put your energy into voting for health care in this country instead of coming up with fantastical ideas of how people will deny you coverage, which they will if they can, regardless of your DNA kit.

Secondly, if anyone in your family , close or extended, has any publicly available DNA , YOU DO TOO! You don't even need a test, I can look at your family genome pattern. If I can, anyone can. Blue Cross, life insurance, China, etc.

Thirdly, your DNA can be court ordered at any time, even if you are not the perp in a crime. The BTK killer was identified by his daughter's pap smear. And they asked for it...no subterfuge. She had no idea.

4th- every time you get a blood test, or have any tissue removed, your insurance company has your DNA. It's connected to YOU, your SS number, your address, everything. 23 n Me, etc , is not necessarily connected to you, and definitelynit attached to a SA number or any id info. . Your hair is, though- your blood, your tooth tartar, saliva on a glass, even your clothes have your DNA. The idea that someone needs to hack a consumer kit and figure your DNA out is the naive part. Come on.

5th- Your DNA profile, your kids, everyone, will be run to treat cancer and many diseases, as that's how treatment works. Breast cancer, lymphoma, and many other cancers are treated by specific DNA markers. Will you decline treatment? I think not.

Many of these DNA companies used aggregated anonymized data to help with pharmaceutical research.

Lastly, your DNA kit has zero to do with anyone getting anything other than you getting information. Your biggest risk is finding a sibling you had no idea you had or a possible genetic condition you didn't know about, either. If you don't want your DNA to "be out there " you'll have to be the only one left living in your original and extended family for several generations.

I don’t think their is anything wrong with contacting a bio relative that you found on one of those sites.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In general I think it’s a good thing. My kid is adopted though so would probably counsel her against it. If she wants to do it at 18 we will discuss the potential can of worms she may open.

Why would you counsel her against having connections with her genetic family and knowing more genetic information? You will always be her family but she has more family, too. She deserves to know her heritage and history and, if she chooses, to have connections to her relatives. Seriously, other than possessiveness, what would prompt you to counsel against this?

because she is the result of a sexual assault. Paternal family unknown. It should probably stay that way..

FWIW, my first sister was also conceived subsequent to rape. It has been difficult for her to know this, but that downside is far smaller than the upside she felt in connecting with her maternal family,

Anonymous wrote:In general I think it’s a good thing. My kid is adopted though so would probably counsel her against it. If she wants to do it at 18 we will discuss the potential can of worms she may open.

I am adopted and did it only to find out my DNA story. It turns out that I was adopted from one country, but am mostly from a whole other country... I did not click the button to turn on matches and I am pretty sure I never will. I do not want to open that can of worms.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In general I think it’s a good thing. My kid is adopted though so would probably counsel her against it. If she wants to do it at 18 we will discuss the potential can of worms she may open.

Why would you counsel her against having connections with her genetic family and knowing more genetic information? You will always be her family but she has more family, too. She deserves to know her heritage and history and, if she chooses, to have connections to her relatives. Seriously, other than possessiveness, what would prompt you to counsel against this?

because she is the result of a sexual assault. Paternal family unknown. It should probably stay that way..

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think people are too willing to give up genetic information to whatever use a company—which certainly doesn’t have your best interests in mind— wants to make of it. On the other hand if someone is genuinely well informed of the risks to their privacy they should go ahead if curious so I wouldn’t restrict those sorts of sites.

Revealing genetic and pertinent health information does have the consumer in mind. Thar is the information they need.

Having the consumer in mind is not the same as being for your best interests. It’s for profit. Your DNA is their content. If you want genetic testing to reveal pertinent health information, your doctor will do it and you will have the dual protections of doctor patient confidentiality and HIPPA. Neither applies to 23&me.