Heel Prick Test

Please watch this first:

Did you know that the blood sample taken from a newborn’s heel prick test is used for research?

Did you know that in Victoria the blood sample from a newborn’s heel prick test is stored indefinitely?

Did you know that that same blood sample has being subpoenaed by courts as evidence?

What is the heel prick test?

The heel prick test is undertaken on a baby when it is between 48 and 72 hours old.  A doctor, or midwife, must seek a parent’s consent before the test is done.  This test has been undertaken since 1970 in Australia. 

The procedure requires a few drops of blood being collected from the baby’s heel on special filter paper.  The filter paper is left to dry then sent to a screening laboratory where the sample is tested for different conditions.

This card that contains the baby’s information is called the Guthrie card.

Guthrie Card

Why do the heel prick test?

The heel prick test is done to detect rare genetic disorders.  In Australia, the test screens newborn babies for disorders such as cystic fibrosis.  It is also sometimes used to detect more than 30 extremely rare disorders related to how the body breaks down protein and fat.

When the test results show that the baby has a birth defect, early diagnosis and treatment can make the difference between lifelong disabilities and healthy development.

A young girl with cystic fibrosis

However, this test has faced several legal challenges.

Legal Challenge #1

The American Flag

Texas, like every other state in America, pricks the heels of newborn children for a blood sample.  Over time, these cards began to accumulate and the Texas State Department of Health Services began to share them and use them for research in order to benefit public health.  It is important to note that the Guthrie cards were de-identified.

As a result of these actions, the department was sued because it failed to obtain consent from each parent for the release of their (nameless) child’s blood spot.

The case promptly settled.  The state agreed to destroy millions of cards and to give parents clearer procedures to opt out of the storage of the cards.

Unfortunately, this was not where the case finally stayed.  The state had also concealed its involvement in a law enforcement project.  The Texan doctors had also handed over hundreds of Guthrie cards to the federal government to help build a vast DNA database – a forensic tool designed to identify missing persons and crack cold cases.  This database would be shared worldwide with one common theme – homeland security and anti-terrorism. 

DNA

The way that this works is that everyone in the same maternal line shares the same DNA sequence.  However, a match from a crime scene sample to a profile from a Guthrie card would have little impact.  This is because the cards are nameless.  But there is no doubt that the federal government wanted to build such a database in order to improve the interpretation of such data for evidence and other sources.   

Outcome: this legal challenge led to the destruction of 5.2 million Guthrie cards due to the lack of parental consent.

Legal Challenge #2

The Australian Flag

In 1997 in Western Australia police wanted to gain access to DNA to prove a man was the father to his own grandchildren.  No one in the family would consent to this request because they lived in fear of the man.  The police were therefore able to obtain DNA samples from the Guthrie cards and successfully prosecute the father with incest.

Outcome: this challenge led to Western Australian hospitals upholding a policy of keeping the cards for only two years before destroying them.

Legal Challenge #3

The New Zealand Flag

In New Zealand in 1999 there was an action for a paternity test.  A man asked the High Court to have his child’s blood sample released for DNA analysis after the baby’s death.  The mother claimed that releasing the sample would be unlawful since it would be used for a purpose other than its original purpose.  She also claimed that she had not been informed that a blood sample for Guthrie test analysis had been taken from her child and that she had never consented for this sample to be obtained.

Outcome: the High Court granted the man access to the card and it was ultimately proven that he was the biological father of the baby.

Discussion

The heel prick test and the use of the information stored on this card raise some very important questions.  

Here is a selection of questions open for discussion:

1.              Should parents decide who has access to their baby’s DNA?

2.              Do the Guthrie cards provide a valuable public health service?

3.              Should consent to this procedure be taken during pregnancy?

4.              Do we need a consistent national law to regulate this procedure?

5.              Or, could changes lead to parents not consenting to the Guthrie card procedure?

Government Vs Non-Government

The opportunity for children and teenagers to reach their full potential is often determined by their education.

The Film:

‘Waiting for Superman’ (4½ stars), released on 24^th March 2011 at selected cinemas, follows five American students who try to win a spot through the drop of a number in an alternative school.  Such alternative schools are called ‘charter schools’ – publicly funded schools whereby it is free for students to attend, but operates independently of the public system.  The film’s title – and the charter schools – was inspired by Geoffrey Canada. 

Geoffrey Canada

As a boy, Canada cried when he was told that Superman didn’t exist because this meant that there was no one left to save him.  Here is the official trailer to this film:

This film focuses on the divide between government and non-government education, in particular how government schools are letting students down.  Yet, the most damning focus is on the incompetent teachers that remain in the system because the union works to protect them.  As a result, this film caused a furore in America.

Ironically, the director Davis Guggenheim (also the director of ‘Inconvenient Truth’) in the opening scenes drives passed three public schools in Los Angeles to drop off his own children at a non-government school.  This is because he is enabled with ‘choice’.  Many other families do not have the same choice.  Choice leads to opportunity.  

Davis Guggenheim

Australia’s Education System:

The basic foundation of education:

Australia has ratified the international Convention on the Rights of the Child (CROC).  This means that Australia has signed this international treaty and implemented it into our legal system.  It becomes part of our laws.  A section of the CROC recognises that every child has the right to an education, even if the parent/s cannot afford it.  Hence, fees at government schools are not compulsory. 

The funding of education:

It is the taxpayer who pays for education.  The federal government then passes this pool of money onto the state governments, who in turn decide how to allocate this money throughout the government and non-government schools.

Currently, government schools on average receive $11 061 per student, whilst non-government schools receive $6 089 per student.  The non-government schools have their income further topped up by parents paying fees.

The pressing question here is: should non-government schools continue to receive government funding (no matter how much it is) when parents are already paying substantial fees and have chosen to send their child to that school? 

For example, Geelong Grammar is the most expensive non-government school in Australia.  The school’s Year 12 fees are greater than $20 000 and the government further subsidises the school with approximately another $3 500 per student.  Should they still receive this government funding?  

Geelong Grammar

Whereas, at your local government school, fees are voluntary – and not all parents pay them.  Whilst the school does receive government funding, is it enough?

(Figures taken from ‘The Age’ - ‘Can We Afford to Continue Funding Private Schools?’ 18/2/2011)

Government School

Teachers:

Are most teachers mediocre? – whether it be because they are: tired of unruly children/teenagers; inadequate at conveying the lesson goals; terribly disorganised; feel unsupported in their workplace; are underpaid; disconnected from their students; struggle with classroom management; suffer low morale due to poor facilities; run ragged with endless paperwork, reports, emails, telephone calls, meetings, extra-curricular activities, camps, or corrections; or, because they are simply not made of ‘teacher stuff’.

Or, are most teachers mediocre because they do not have the energy to be anything else because of all of/some of the above?

What do you remember of your teachers?  What made the good ones great?

Or, are most teachers mediocre because there is a decline in the academic standard of teaching recruits?  Last year in Victoria, the average university entry score for a teaching degree was the lowest in more than a decade, sitting at 68.45 (highest achievable VCE ENTER is 99.95). 

Or, are most teachers mediocre because the average wage of a Victorian teacher is $46 498 - $66 514?  The worst shortages of teachers recorded by the Education Department this year were in Mathematics, Science and Technology.  Not only this, 40% of government schools have reported having to place teachers in subjects they were unqualified to teach.

This following clip may give you some further insight:

Whatever your answer to the above questions, is it the adults that are to blame?  Be it from teachers, principals, parents, to politicians.

Do you think Australia also has inequalities of opportunity between its public and private schools?

The Italian Prime Minister: Silvio Berlusconi

The Italian Prime Minister - Silvio Berlusconi - Age 74

Silvio – The Charge:

On April 6^th 2011, Italian Prime Minister, Silvio Berlusconi, 74, will be facing a court case regarding a charge (among many others) that he paid for sex with an underage prostitute (she was 17 at the time).  The Moroccan dancer/prostitute in question is called, ‘Ruby the Heart Stealer’ – she is also claiming to be the ousted Egyptian president, Hosni Mubarak’s niece.  Berlusconi claims to have had her released from police custody in order to maintain a healthy diplomatic relationship with Egypt.  This is clearly an abuse of his power.

Ruby the Heart Stealer

Silvio – The Person:

The Italian culture is renowned for romanticism, curvaceous women and notions of fulfilling sex, but Berlusconi is seen by many to have debased this culture.  In fact, he has pioneered for the last twenty years what many deem as ‘sexist television’, and even owns three prime television stations.  Following is a clip from one such television station, which was featured during prime time viewing: 

There is no doubting that Berlusconi is obsessed with attractive women. 

He has continuously made political appointments of beauty queens.  One such appointment was of the Equal Opportunities Minister, Mara Carfagna, who was also once a showgirl on one of the Berlusconi-owned channels. 

Mara Carfunga - The Politician and the Showgirl

Berlusconi is also renowned for his ‘bunga bunga’ parties.  The name of these parties refers to crude sex games whereby women were known to wear nurses’ outfits and police uniforms.  At one such party it was claimed that there were 33 women, all involved in an orgy.

He has openly made comments about unattractive women in interviews claiming that they are only intelligent because they have no beauty.  Beauty is a quality he upholds higher than any other one.  Even in his political advertising campaigns, attractive women are the key to his success. 

In a public display, Berlusconi’s second wife, Veronica Lario, demanded a divorce in 2009 claiming Berlusconi ‘cavorts with minors’ and was ‘a dragon to whom young virgins offer themselves’.

Veronica Lario - Silvio Berlusconi's ex-wife

Silvio – The Politician:

All this chauvinism and playboy image aside, what has Berlusconi done for Italy?  What are his political policies?  And, how does he measure up to the people of Italy?

Berlusconi, nicknamed ‘The Knight’, due to an Order he received, is Italy’s second longest serving Prime Minister.  After completing his Law degree he began what became a thriving property business.  In 1993 he entered politics and a year later became Italy’s Prime Minister.  Since, he has been in and out of the Prime Ministership, and has also faced other corruption charges.

He is now the richest man in Italy, and the owner of several media enterprises and the nation’s top football team.  As for his government’s policies they have included:

·      Stronger ties with America, including supporting the invasion of Iraq.

·      Promoting a greater friendship with Israel and Turkey.

·      Moving away from pro-Arab countries.

·      Improving relationships with Russia.

·      Reforming the Italian Constitution.

·      Budget cuts to education due to the financial global crisis.

·      Reducing the powers of the Magistrates in the courts.

Some Italians claim that Berlusconi has operated as a shrewd businessman and saved a great deal of money for Italy.  They also uphold that he has forced politicians to actually do some work and not just sit in their ivory towers.  However, the current polls show that nearly half the people in Italy want Berlusconi not to finish his current term in office. 

An important note: the three judges in this current Berlusconi case were selected by a computer at random – and ALL are female.  Watch closely for the outcome of this case.

Discussion Questions

•     Should a politician’s personal life be taken into consideration?
•   To what extent can we accept conflicts of interest in a person’s occupation?
•    Do you think the current legal claims against the Italian Prime Minister only amount to ‘scandal politics’?