Also he’s dead, why do dead people deserve anything, any rights? What harm happens to Hitler? He’s dead. Did we ask dinosaurs to look at their DNA, for all we know they were sentient? The whole argument is stupid.
I may be very stupid about it and not know the normative, but what is the safest option for me is the following.
No informed consent -> no research on any samples from the patient.
Does not matter how important your research is.
I myself would like to be informed about that stuff. I may decide to donate my organs to research after I’m dead, but I have decided that.
In the case of DNA, because it’s shared with relatives and descendants who might be still alive. In Hitler’s case, that might not be that much of an issue, but you were talking about dead people in general.
If your parents are dead, and thus they get DNA sampled, that information gained is good enough to positively identify DNA traces of all their children.
Remember how they caught the Golden State Killer? They put a DNA sample into the genetics website GEDmatch and found a few of his distant relatives. They then used publicly available family history records to construct a family tree that included all of these matches. That allowed them to narrow down the suspects to two people. One of them could be ruled out by DNA testing a close relative, which left the last one. They then took a DNA sample from his car, which was a match and that’s how they got him.
Using that kind of stuff to catch killers is likely a good use of the technology, but there’s quite a few nefarious things a state could do with a DNA database of all dead people.
Because caring for our dead is a very human trait. In my state, a housing development was put on hold after the bones of indigenous people were found there and they had a connection to people claiming descent from them making the whole thing a family affair.
oh hey i live in a neighborhood like that. my entire city is on an indian burial ground. every time they develop land, they survey, catalog, and gather the artifacts before placing them on land no one is supposed to know where but it’s by the park.
How did they know they were indigenous bones? Was dead person’s consent asked for to check if dead person wanted to be identified as ancestor of somebody?
I mean i understand caring for our dead, but anytime it’s a matter of consent, its always for the living descendants, HIPPA protects medical records for 50 years, but they’re generally protected so the living descendents don’t feel impact for anything that maybe damaging.
And talking about laws I know it’s a tangent, but the reason copyright exist after death is so that revenue can be enjoyed by living descendents. Laws are not necessarily sensible a lot of times.
They could probably tell fairly quickly by the age of the ground they were found in. Colonisation occurred less than 200 years ago making it fairly trivial to understand if they were older. The indigenous had also maintained stories describing the area as a burial ground.
For the living indigenous its a tangible link to their pre colonisation culture, thus making it incredibly important to them. After they’ve had so much of their land, language, beliefs, foods and culture has been taken away from them, I’m sure you can understand why preserving the links that they still have is important to them
When there is a crime scene, the place is searched for fingerprints, hair, fabrics, anything that could find the suspect. No “privacy” is given, because it’s a fucking crime scene. Hitler murdered people, that’s a crime scene. He forfeited any right to privacy when he forfeited his humanity.
Also he’s dead, why do dead people deserve anything, any rights? What harm happens to Hitler? He’s dead. Did we ask dinosaurs to look at their DNA, for all we know they were sentient? The whole argument is stupid.
I may be very stupid about it and not know the normative, but what is the safest option for me is the following. No informed consent -> no research on any samples from the patient.
Does not matter how important your research is. I myself would like to be informed about that stuff. I may decide to donate my organs to research after I’m dead, but I have decided that.
In the case of DNA, because it’s shared with relatives and descendants who might be still alive. In Hitler’s case, that might not be that much of an issue, but you were talking about dead people in general.
If your parents are dead, and thus they get DNA sampled, that information gained is good enough to positively identify DNA traces of all their children.
Remember how they caught the Golden State Killer? They put a DNA sample into the genetics website GEDmatch and found a few of his distant relatives. They then used publicly available family history records to construct a family tree that included all of these matches. That allowed them to narrow down the suspects to two people. One of them could be ruled out by DNA testing a close relative, which left the last one. They then took a DNA sample from his car, which was a match and that’s how they got him.
Using that kind of stuff to catch killers is likely a good use of the technology, but there’s quite a few nefarious things a state could do with a DNA database of all dead people.
Because caring for our dead is a very human trait. In my state, a housing development was put on hold after the bones of indigenous people were found there and they had a connection to people claiming descent from them making the whole thing a family affair.
oh hey i live in a neighborhood like that. my entire city is on an indian burial ground. every time they develop land, they survey, catalog, and gather the artifacts before placing them on land no one is supposed to know where but it’s by the park.
How did they know they were indigenous bones? Was dead person’s consent asked for to check if dead person wanted to be identified as ancestor of somebody?
I mean i understand caring for our dead, but anytime it’s a matter of consent, its always for the living descendants, HIPPA protects medical records for 50 years, but they’re generally protected so the living descendents don’t feel impact for anything that maybe damaging.
And talking about laws I know it’s a tangent, but the reason copyright exist after death is so that revenue can be enjoyed by living descendents. Laws are not necessarily sensible a lot of times.
They could probably tell fairly quickly by the age of the ground they were found in. Colonisation occurred less than 200 years ago making it fairly trivial to understand if they were older. The indigenous had also maintained stories describing the area as a burial ground.
For the living indigenous its a tangible link to their pre colonisation culture, thus making it incredibly important to them. After they’ve had so much of their land, language, beliefs, foods and culture has been taken away from them, I’m sure you can understand why preserving the links that they still have is important to them
You bring up a lot of good points.
Apparently there are some rights that exist beyond death. Currently HIPAA protection after death for medical privacy only extends fifty years.
So it does appear the argument is pretty moot.
Here is an interesting read on the matter.
https://aeon.co/essays/do-we-have-a-right-to-medical-privacy-after-we-are-dead
When there is a crime scene, the place is searched for fingerprints, hair, fabrics, anything that could find the suspect. No “privacy” is given, because it’s a fucking crime scene. Hitler murdered people, that’s a crime scene. He forfeited any right to privacy when he forfeited his humanity.
The whole post is ridiculous.