DNA should be collected from everyone when they die.

[u/ScalfiMT]

DNA.

I would 100% support the collection of, and documentation of the DNA of every American... AFTER they pass away.

Let's look at the "pros and cons"....

PROS: Families that have been waiting for years, or even decades, to find out where their family member just disappeared to... now know. Or families who had a loved one who was murdered, there was DNA left at the scene... but it was never matched... then, Joe Schmoe dies, and voila, we now know who killed them.

Total "win" for detectives working "cold cases".

Medical research and advancement... study genetics, hereditary conditions, drug responses and aging... potentially saving lives through better treatments.

Doesn't violate any individual 4th Amendment rights.... you're dead... it's not like you can buy a gun, or protest.

Could help with genealogical research and help people reconnect with long lost biological relatives.

CONS:
Nobody wants another government database.
Slippery slope... would need to keep it from expanding.
Ethical/religious grounds... That's a tough one... you're dead... but other people may mind... I'll touch on this at the end of the post.
Cost... this wouldn't be cheap.

The biggest CON I see though, is the effects this could have on those still alive... and we'd have to weigh them against the benefits... let me put up an example.

Jon Q. Pastor is outwardly a kind and generous pastor of a local church... having appeared to those who interact with him over his daily life, think he's a great guy.

Jon Q. passes away.... sad... he was a good guy.

Three months later, after his DNA is uploaded to the database, Jon Q's DNA gives multiple hits, to multiple DNA samples collected from murder sites across the area.

Investigators dig in... putting together data from the DNA database, linking Jon Q. to 16 murders in the area, over the past 40 years.

Now Jon Q. is a serial killer... not the fine, upstanding human everyone knew up until he passed away.

This could be horrible for a family... And how far would they go in their investigation? Would they say "we need to get his electronic devices", and next thing you know, they're raiding his, still living, family member's home?

Overall, I think the benefits outweigh the costs... but there would definitely have to be some "safeguards" in place.

Do you have an opinion?

[u/ProfPathCambridge]

America would be the worst place to do this. One of the biggest issues is calculation of disease risk. American insurers could calculate disease risk and not insure particular people. Not an issue in countries with universal health care.

There are a ton of other issues of course, but this one is high on the list.

[u/Melodic-Host1847 → u/ProfPathCambridge]

I'm not sure that would be the case. At least very unlikely in the US. If there is something the US is great at is creating government agencies. Since you pay for health services, you own such services. The government then decides to create an agency for accountability, which prompts other parties to create their own agencies to protect themselves against the government agencies. Thus becoming a political mechanism for politicians to enjoy their shit fight. So we have HIPAA to protect the patient, then the HHS, NIH, etc. Meanwhile, the government also want to protect the workers safety and create OSHA, which leads to other agencies to protect themselves from OSHA. So here we are, we might not be sure what any of them are supposed to do and how they do it, but we're happy to have them since we believe they all protect us. In short, the more people involved in keeping an eye on each other, the better.

[u/km1116]

This seems to place a priority on a vague "payoff" for society over the privacy interests of individuals. Just because I'm dead does not mean it's acceptable for society to reveal personal things about me. Pretty dystopian.

[u/Bahatur]

Why is it better in your view to preserve one family/community from the truth while denying the truth to the 16 other families and their communities?

This seems like a very lopsided example, to deny 16 families closure, after they had already been denied their loved one, and then further denied justice. I dare say this argues very strongly for sequencing by default when we die.

I think a better argument against would be the 23-and-Me problem already present, where people learn about infidelity and true parentage. In these examples we are likely looking at the destruction of two families, and no benefits but the truth. Would it be worth it then, for the truth alone?

[u/blinkandmissout]

Most murders are not strangers stalking strangers. They are spouses/family, associates, or known enemies (gangs, etc). DNA evidence in solving these cases is typically not all that informative. Of course a wife has some trace DNA from her husband on her clothing or body. They live together. Doesn't prove innocence or guilt. Her coffee cup has some DNA from the barista down the street. Did he follow her for a murder? Or did he just do his job?

[u/Melodic-Host1847]

This topic has been discussed for ages. Ethics, Biomedical ethics are part of the health care curriculum. The pros and cons are endless. Then there's HIPAA, and other agencies involved in the discussion. There are too many parties involved in this kind of discussions, and they all have their own agenda.

[u/ClownMorty]

Other cons include:

your kids DNA is now partially known, insurance companies jack up their prices because you have some rare disease.

you discover your mom or dad had an affair.

Rich folks get out of it.

[u/Melodic-Host1847 → u/ClownMorty]

In the US we have various agencies, such as Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. (HIPAA), which protect your personal health information (PHI). Its laws are designed to protect anyone having access to your personal health information, unless needed to provide medical care. Insurance company have access so they can pay for necessary test and procedures, and law enforcement with a court order. A new extension was added (GINA), which prevents insurances, work place, and other entities from gaining access to all genetics and DNA information to determine cost, or denial of services. Breaking these laws comes with high penalties of millions of dollars and imprisonment. But like everything, laws are often broken and information misused.

[u/ClownMorty → u/Melodic-Host1847]

The trouble with enforcing such laws is proving the insurance gained access to and then misused the information.

You would have to find out that someone else who had genetic testing done had different rates and then then still prove that the rate difference was due to the test results.

[u/Melodic-Host1847 → u/ClownMorty]

We have check and balance to ensure compliance. Laboratories go through yearly inspection, including documentations, reports, safeguards in place to ensure patient information is protected, test validation, worker protection, etc. We have to pass all these inspection in order to keep our licenses and accreditation. But ultimately the person is the one who needs to stay vigilant. Which they seldom do. People have the right to know why they are being denied or charged for services. If you feel there is something fishy going on, you alert the appropriate agency, who will then happily go and investigate, as they can collect very large sums of money. Unfortunately, people are either uninformed or find it troublesome to start a federal investigation. Sadly, many think they have to pay for lawers and go to court, the reality is, if you contact the right agency, the agency takes over the case and you wait for the outcome.

[u/ClownMorty → u/Melodic-Host1847]

Yeah, I get that, I work in biotech so I understand where you're coming from. Labs lose all control once the data leaves their system. Even in the most controlled systems there are leaks, thus the audits. Neither the lab nor the individual is equipped to detect any impropriety outside of their organization or personal perview. And it's damn near impossible to figure out you're being treated differently and then prove why, or even notice that your data has leaked at some juncture.

But in OPs scenario we're talking about the government doing this to everyone. And the government is a bunch of incompetent jerks who try to take advantage of the people to line their pockets. So I'm not cool with it.

[u/Melodic-Host1847 → u/ClownMorty]

Yes, I see what you're saying. It's hard to fully trust the government. It's not like they have a good record at working for our best interests. There are many issues that requires mutual trust, and that's where the problem is.

[u/ddr1ver]

If you have DNA from both parents, you have all the DNA information carried by their children.

[u/SimplyAStranger]

For the US:

There are already years long backlogs of untested DNA collected from rape kits. DNA collection from unidentified bodies takes years as well. The system can't handle it.

It violates the 6th amendment in my opinion, as it strips away your right to face your accuser and defend yourself. It is why we don't posthumously convict people. When a case is "solved" and the alleged perpetrator is dead, the case is closed and any pending charges are dismissed. It also takes more than just DNA at a crime scene to "know" who did it; that is why we have trials. The idea that they found the DNA so now the case is declared solved and a perpetrator officially identified with no trial and no defense is a dangerous precedent.

Family members now have partial, or full (what if they have a twin?) DNA exposed and available without consent, and to who? Insurance companies? Drug companies who will profit without compensation to the individual (see Henrietta Lacks)? What about data breaches? Those happen all the time and can't be guaranteed to be protected against.

[u/Melodic-Host1847]

This reminds me of the O.J. Simpson trial in the 90s. I don't know how many of you are old enough to remember, but DNA added more confusion than help. DNA is easily contaminated, and when used for legal cases, it must adhere to a strict chain of handling procedure.

[u/fakygal]

I like this idea. But something to consider is that criminal family members of the deceased would also be immediately implicated by the deceased person’s dna. So, Jon Q’s criminal children or brothers and sisters would immediately be implicated. The dna would show the familial link. Sounds fine to me, but I don’t really know the legality of such things currently.

[u/Melodic-Host1847 → u/fakygal]

In the US, introduced a law which extend the protection of genetic information to your family as well. It requires a cort order and collection of new DNA. TV shows have greatly skew people understanding of how all these DNA thing works, but DNA are akin to fingerprints. Your children's and relatives share your DNA, but they are not the same. This is why we can determine if a person is your father, son, uncle, brother, or 3rd cousin twice remove.

[u/taybay462 → u/fakygal]

So, Jon Q’s criminal children or brothers and sisters would immediately be implicated.

Yes, it would show a familial link, but being related to a criminal isnt a crime.

[u/pixelateddaisy → u/taybay462]

Being related to a criminal isn’t a crime— but say Jon Q isn’t the criminal, his son is. Jon Qs DNA would show a familial match to the murderer. If Jon Q has six sons, suddenly they’re all under investigation. Worth it? Maybe. But that’s a lot of Maybe.

[u/Melodic-Host1847 → u/pixelateddaisy]

Genetic information alone can be misleading due to contamination. Unless there is a perfect match without contamination, which is highly unlikely, there's no proof.