Would you submit to DNA testing by your employer.

I originally posted this topic relating to professional sports. No one seemed to respond maybe because sports arent big around here or i didnt ask a direct question. Anyway the issue is that the Bulls want thier center, Eddie Curry, to under go DNA testing to find out if he is suseptable hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, which has killed former athletes. Now if he submits, does this open the doorway for all employers to have the right to ask you to submit and would you be willing to do so?

at some point in time you're body is your own, and just because you work for someone doesn't mean they have a right demand something like that. I thought slavery and indenture servitude went out of style several years ago.

No I wouldn't submit it...random drug testing is about as far as I go.

I most certainly would not. However, I am not asking for an NBA max contract. Curry is in trouble either way. He can refuse and have nobody sign him or take the test and assure that nobody will ever sign him. They are having legitimate issues getting any insurance for any contract given him, which is why no other team will sign him.

As for the rest of us, it really doesn't seem like a good idea. What exactly would they be looking for? At least with Curry, they only need to be told one thing by an independent testing firm for a career that won't last too long in the cosmic scheme of things.

If your employer discovered a genetic propensity toward heart disease, would this hamper you ability to get elevated to a really significant position? This seems to open up a can of worms. My head hurts thinkin' about it.

No. Nor will I ever work for a company that demands that I submit to a drug test.

-Ghoti

I would love to get a free DNA test if the results were made available to me...

No. Absolutely not. Nor will I submit to one for medical reasons for fear that the insurance companies or my employer or the government may obtain the information and use it against me.

I don't believe in drug testing either except in after the fact cases where there is reasonable cause to suspect on the job abuse.

I likely would say NO and wouldn't submit to a DNA test and here's why: I don't have a problem with the data itself, but rather, how widely interpretations of that data differ. Here people are in America getting all up in arms about "evolution" and "intelligent design"... we don't understand so many fundamental things, how can this be logic without a psychological, lowminded fear?

I would also think it's a safe thing to say the weak aspects of someone's DNA (like susceptibility to certain future diseases) could also be used against them by a company trying to fire them, so those spots would be targeted and emphasized. You could be a superperson in every area but if you had a frailty (which everyone does, as we are human), your employer might keep jabbing it at you like a nagging robot.

Humans (and I generalize) have a tendency to squash things underfoot without seeing how good they can be. Someone may be well aware of a failing in one area, which causes them to be superdetermined and ultrapersistent and really live life to the fullest despite the problems they have!

There's also this list which is often cited... Famous People with Disabilities:

http://ericec.org/fact/famous.html

and also, personal to me is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recognised_people_with_autism_spectrum_disorders

I guess what I'm wanting to say is that I'd only confidently submit to a DNA test if we were ruled by perfect alien overlords with bicameral minds who didn't have humanity's prejudices. But, that is unrealistic for the time being.

As a freelancer, I have DNA tested myself, and was dismayed at the results. Needless to say, I will no longer be recommending me to potential clients.

Answer: Not without a "show-cause", and not without approval-rights on the professionally-trained person who would interpret it.

What was the name of that excellent Ethan Hawke film I saw a few years ago... Gattaca.

All depends on what kind of salary/bennies they were offering.

500K & all the Alpo I can eat? Hell, I'll draw my own blood for ya...

Yes i would, im in the military so i guess i think about these things differantly but i figure if you have nothing to hide why not?

I would only do it if they let me give my DNA sample by ejaculating all over their faces.

That is one of my fave films—especially the part with the six-fingered pianist!

I suppose that's one way to look at things. If you have nothing to hide, I don't suppose you'll mind showing us your bank account, RL photo (naked, it's needed for verification of identifying marks), as well as being subjected to a public search of your home, property, internet usage history, emails, and blood samples/ naked photos of all your children. Just for the records. To make sure that you're you, your family is who they say they are, and nothing illegal has been going on.

Obviously it's ridiculous to go to all of those extremes, but "extreme" is relative to the individual and giving up a blood sample to some people might make them feel equally as mistrusted or violated.

My opinion is that with soldiers it's understandable because we have military security to think about. With civilians it's not so understandable.

Haha... you just reminded me of that part in Total Recall when the cab driver says, "Damn, you make me wish I had three hands!"

Here is what would happen if I underwent DNA testing:

Doc: "Well, (name withheld), we've done all the tests, and it came back that you are fat."
Me: "Duh!"
Doc: "So, you need to lose weight."
Me: "What do you weigh? 135?"
Doc: "Actually 127."
Me: "OK, I'll drop 127 pounds right this instant. See you." (walks out)

Boss: "Well, (name withheld), what were the results?"
Me: "I belong to a union. I'm suing for $100k plus emotional damage."
Boss: (writes in folder) "Results positive, further testing not needed."

Christ!

Gattaca is starting already! I figured it'd take another 5 years.

Nope. It would compromise my disguise by giving away that my dna is a triple-helix, and as such a secret agent for the aliens.





...



Crap.

You and 008 should contact Lisse about that safe-house

"I ain't gonna pee pee in no cup
unless Nancy Reagan's gonna drink it up
said, yo Nancy, we just say NO No NONONO...

well, I aint gonna piss in no jar
yeah those evil peckerheads they done gone too far
I wouldn't pee in their mouth if they were dying of thirst
yeah, we gotta get rid of the evil curse

everybody should go to Washington
have ourselves a little fun
they want our piss I think we should give it to them

you know Thomas Jefferson's gonna be mighty pissed
when he finds out about this
I said, come back from the dead Tom
sock 'em in the head"

Mojo Nixon

Amen my brother...

Noooope!

'nuff said.

I would say yes to all those things, Search my body.. search my bank accounts..check my internet history.. i dont care.. if i was doing something shady and was trying to hide something then yes i would care but i have nothing to hide so what would it hurt someone looking at you/your stuff?

I would say No. what in god's name am I going to hide inside my own DNA? The intimate details of my personal being are mine, and nobody has the right to peer into it, not even doctors or the government, let alone some poxy employer.

As a company director myself, I wouldn't want to know about my employees, I don't want to be bothered with all that extra info, just as long as they do what they're paid for, it's good enough for me.

I agree.

What's next? Employers monitoring how much sleep we get and our diets too?

How did humankind run businesses for 1000s of years without testing? Simple. If a person was at work stoned or drunk, you fired them.

I'll tell you what this is really about - it's about insurance companies putting the squeeze on employers. It's about the parasitic testing labs making a mint off of this. It's pathetic, and a horrid invasion of privacy.

On the military. I was in the military, and I saw more drugs being done there than during any other period of my life. So much for testing curbing drug use.

Heavy drinkers, who cause a whole bevy of social problems, are hardly affected at all by this testing, and that's a shame. It's unfair that an alcoholic can get hired by laying off the booze for a couple days, and a person who took acid once, when they were a teen, will be rejected because the DNA in their hair strand tests positive for LSD. It's a fucking farce.