Woman in persistive vegetative state unexpectedly delivers baby

[anniemae]

I just read a People magazine article on this. It gets stranger. Apparently she has been in the facility closer to 27 years, not 10 years as previously reported. I thought she was in a coma, but it made it sound like she is developmentally delayed, not in a coma. It said something like she is unable to make decisions. Which could mean she is delayed.

 

[mummabear]

Wasn't this a Law & Order episode?

ETA: Yep. https://m.imdb.com/title/tt0629283/

I wouldn't comply. I won't do the Ancestry
DNA and I would fight this. Since I wouldn't be guilty hopefully I drag it out long enough that the guilty party was found.

The government can't keep our data safe what makes anyone think one of their DNA databases won't be breached if it hasn't already.

IMO it would be a stain on your reputation that you refused to hand it over, that you wasted investigative time and resources because you refused to rule yourself out.

Said every government that wants more police powers than it should have.
Beware the government that says, "Don't worry. Weeeee aren't taking YOUR rights away. We'rrrrre only taking THAT GUY'S a way. And the giving of this power to us won't cost you anything. Weeeee won't abuse the power. Weeee need this to fight crime. You're not against fighting crime. Arrrre you?"

The reality is no they don't need it to fight crime. They've fought it for years without it. Your rights are being taken away, and they will abuse it. Just look at the abuses of civil forfeiture.

Please tell me, what could be done with my DNA really?

Sure they have fought crime for years without it, they could do it more successfully with it though. Imagine that a girl is raped in a bar, with the tape kit they can now know that the DNA is from Wilbert Johnson, and we can go straight to interviewing and investigating the crime knowing the players.

 

[mummabear]

Until medical insurance companies deny you coverage based on your DNA profile. Also the "I've go nothing to hide" argument is flawed for a number of reasons.

Well again, I live in a country where everyone is covered for medical so it is no worry at all for us....

This is completely false. Everyone has the right to not have their DNA in a government database. Going by that flawed logic there is no need at all for search warrants. The notion of "if you aren't doing anything wrong you have nothing to hide" is as wrong as believing the world is flat.

Yup going by my flawed logic in also dont give a whoot if the police want to search my house either...again I have nothing to hide.
I also trust that law enforcement have better things to do than randomly search my house for no reason...

 

[FlightlessDuck]

I agree as long as the results of those found not the father are destroyed and not stored in a database to be used in the future in unrelated investigations.

Why?

 

[kdonnel]

Why?

I see no reason why an innocent person should be required to keep their DNA in a police database. It is the "if you have nothing to hide" argument at the core.

I prefer to complete that statement with, "you still have something to fear!"

The "nothing to hide" argument mistakenly suggests that privacy is something only criminals desire.

 

[smiths02]

Well again, I live in a country where everyone is covered for medical so it is no worry at all for us....


Yup going by my flawed logic in also dont give a whoot if the police want to search my house either...again I have nothing to hide.
I also trust that law enforcement have better things to do than randomly search my house for no reason...

I saw a recent case that was solved by using one of the DNA sites, which I have voluntarily done (with my DH insisting). Anyhow, in this case, the police ran the suspect DNA through one of those sites and got a hit on a relative which then narrowed down the suspect. Anyhow, my problem with it would be that I could have done nothing wrong, but a family member could have (even one I have no contact with, which is a sore spot for me since I was abandoned by my father), and then police could be watching me, following me, questioning me at work or home (where people would see), etc.
I am married to law enforcement, and I am a pretty law abiding person (I don't even steal cable), but I don't want invasions on my privacy. Too late now since I am on 23 and me, but it does concern me.

 

[kimblebee]

IMO it would be a stain on your reputation that you refused to hand it over, that you wasted investigative time and resources because you refused to rule yourself out.



Please tell me, what could be done with my DNA really?

Sure they have fought crime for years without it, they could do it more successfully with it though. Imagine that a girl is raped in a bar, with the tape kit they can now know that the DNA is from Wilbert Johnson, and we can go straight to interviewing and investigating the crime knowing the players.

Well again, I live in a country where everyone is covered for medical so it is no worry at all for us....


Yup going by my flawed logic in also dont give a whoot if the police want to search my house either...again I have nothing to hide.
I also trust that law enforcement have better things to do than randomly search my house for no reason...

This thread reminded me that I’m almost out of tin foil

 

[cabanafrau]

i hope you never lick the envelope when you pay your insurance bills, you give them your DNA every time, and DNA that is discarded does not need a court order for testing. Straws, gum, cups... all usually has enough DNA from your cheek cells that can be tested. If someone really wanted your DNA without your consent, it would not be that hard to get..., you unknowing throw it away prolly every day...more than enough. LOL I watch my forensic files... It is one of the ways police will get prelim results when they need to rule some one in or out... scope through the trash or grab a discarded cup.

You think that insurance companies are going to go to that level of effort and expense? Without absolute knowledge of the origin of a DNA sample, how is it they would know whose DNA profile they're reviewing? How is it that the law would allow them to do anything with that information that they cannot establish a factual basis for? Setting aside the fact that there does not currently exist enough lab capacity to undertake such a massive fishing expedition in the first place.

IMO it would be a stain on your reputation that you refused to hand it over, that you wasted investigative time and resources because you refused to rule yourself out.

Please tell me, what could be done with my DNA really?

Sure they have fought crime for years without it, they could do it more successfully with it though. Imagine that a girl is raped in a bar, with the tape kit they can now know that the DNA is from Wilbert Johnson, and we can go straight to interviewing and investigating the crime knowing the players.

Simply because you suffer from a lack of imagination regarding how your DNA profile could potentially be used against you doesn't mean that every law abiding citizen cares to surrender their rights to Constitutional protections from involuntary search and seizure and other due process rights.

Well again, I live in a country where everyone is covered for medical so it is no worry at all for us....

Yup going by my flawed logic in also dont give a whoot if the police want to search my house either...again I have nothing to hide.
I also trust that law enforcement have better things to do than randomly search my house for no reason...

I live in a country where generations of people fought hard, with many giving their lives to ensure that I and my fellow citizens have due process rights under the law and therefore I don't have to trust that law enforcement has better things to do than randomly search my home for no reason. You're welcome to throw off whatever protections your constitution does or does not afford you as you see fit -- mine offers a blanket of protection that is invaluable and precious.

 

[mom2rtk]

Wasn't this a Law & Order episode?

If there wasn't already (it's hard to keep track) there likely will be now.

Requesting a DNA sample but not forcing them? Do you think the perpetrator is going to willingly volunteer?

I've watched enough Law and Order to know what they're really looking for is to see who says no.

 

[Hikergirl]

This thread reminded me that I’m almost out of tin foil


View attachment 374830

In this country we consider our Rights pretty sacred.

 

[VandVsmama]

Putting aside for a moment the topic of whether or not to gather DNA from the male employees at that facility, put yourself in the shoes of that woman's family. If you were her mom or dad, how would you feel in this situation?

In the Arizona newspapers here, there is new news reported every other day about this crime. And from what it looks like, Hacienda Healthcare (the facility where this woman is living) has a history, according to employees, of covering up and being directed by the facility director to NOT report violations to the state. There was an article in the Arizona Republic newspaper site just a couple of days ago talking about a former manager or employee had witnessed an incident in which multiple female nurses were standing around the bed of a male patient, who was comatose or incapacitated in some way (couldn't speak, eat on his own, etc.). The female nurses had disrobed him and were all talking about his genitalia. One employee suggested to report the incident to the state of Arizona and the director of the facility shouted at them that nobody was going to report anything.

In fact, Arizona state law requires something like that to be reported.

If this were one of my family members, there's no way I'd want my loved one at that place.

And in today's news, there was also this...
https://arizonadailyindependent.com...gns-from-hacienda-previous-cover-ups-alleged/

 

[anniemae]

Putting aside for a moment the topic of whether or not to gather DNA from the male employees at that facility, put yourself in the shoes of that woman's family. If you were her mom or dad, how would you feel in this situation?

In the Arizona newspapers here, there is new news reported every other day about this crime. And from what it looks like, Hacienda Healthcare (the facility where this woman is living) has a history, according to employees, of covering up and being directed by the facility director to NOT report violations to the state. There was an article in the Arizona Republic newspaper site just a couple of days ago talking about a former manager or employee had witnessed an incident in which multiple female nurses were standing around the bed of a male patient, who was comatose or incapacitated in some way (couldn't speak, eat on his own, etc.). The female nurses had disrobed him and were all talking about his genitalia. One employee suggested to report the incident to the state of Arizona and the director of the facility shouted at them that nobody was going to report anything.

In fact, Arizona state law requires something like that to be reported.

If this were one of my family members, there's no way I'd want my loved one at that place.

And in today's news, there was also this...
https://arizonadailyindependent.com...gns-from-hacienda-previous-cover-ups-alleged/

Disgusting. I hope someone who works there does the right thing and reports what has been going on.

New details are emerging. It seems she has been in the facility much longer than 10 years, more like over 20 years.

 

[VandVsmama]

In addition, to make things even more horrible, the facility waited 5 days before notifying the woman's family of the baby's birth. The woman's family learned about it on the news.

https://www.azfamily.com/news/inves...cle_ecd464a2-154b-11e9-9e8f-ffb2fe8be0a8.html

 

[cabanafrau]

In addition, to make things even more horrible, the facility waited 5 days before notifying the woman's family of the baby's birth. The woman's family learned about it on the news.

https://www.azfamily.com/news/inves...cle_ecd464a2-154b-11e9-9e8f-ffb2fe8be0a8.html

The article you've cited is poorly written, but actually states that the facility did not notify family members of other patients about the sexual assault and birth of the child, NOT the family of the woman who had given birth.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

- DNA testing - what's the big deal?

https://phys.org/news/2013-07-dna-databases-ethical.html


- OK, but what about in this particular case?

From the National Institutes of Justice
https://www.nij.gov/journals/264/pages/debating-DNA.aspx

A few things worth mentioning, according to this. (Not an expert in this field, just learning more here.
There are some federal laws, and other laws may differ from state to state.)

1. Some states limit pre-conviction DNA samples for violent offenses or sex crimes
2. Crime labs process only the DNA that applies to human identification. They do not process DNA that identifies predisposition to diseases. Most crime labs are incapable of doing that kind of DNA processing.
3. All states with laws allowing preconviction DNA sampling provide a way to expunge profiles if an arrest does not result in a conviction.
4. Courts have viewed collecting and analyzing DNA as a "search" in Fourth Amendment challenges to DNA databases. Usually, a "search" is interpreted to require probable cause and a warrant or, at minimum, individualized suspicion.


Additionally:

The DNA Fingerprint Act of 2005 requires that, beginning January 1, 2009, any adult arrested for a federal crime provide a DNA sample.[2] The law also mandates DNA collection from persons detained under the authority of the United States who are not U.S. citizens or are not lawfully in the country.

Federal law imposes a fine of $250,000 or a year's imprisonment for each instance of wrongdoing involving unauthorized use or disclosure of DNA data collected in an offender or arrestee database. States similarly have penalties, and these vary widely in both fines imposed and imprisonment. State laws also vary with regard to how samples may be used beyond law enforcement and quality control purposes.

My thoughts: It seems to me that, given this is a sex crime against a vulnerable individual, as long as they've obtained a warrant and that pre-conviction DNA is expunged if not convicted, that authorities are within their rights to collect samples from male employees that had access to the patient.

There may be things I'm not aware of and therefore not considering, but, as per the above, I think I'm comfortable with it as stated. I would be interested to hear from anyone still opposed and why, for discussion's sake. Certainly many arguments can be made given this subject matter.

 

[TeresaBelle]

I just read a People magazine article on this. It gets stranger. Apparently she has been in the facility closer to 27 years, not 10 years as previously reported. I thought she was in a coma, but it made it sound like she is developmentally delayed, not in a coma. It said something like she is unable to make decisions. Which could mean she is delayed.

What in the world?? When the story first came out, didn't it say she'd had a near drowning incident when she was 15 and that's why she was there? Is that completely not true?

I read this in the People article too, the woman’s relatives are “outraged, traumatized and in shock by the abuse and neglect of their daughter at Hacienda Healthcare”. I wonder if and how often they visited her. I just CANNOT believe no one knew she was pregnant, until she gave birth!

 

[cabanafrau]

- DNA testing - what's the big deal?

https://phys.org/news/2013-07-dna-databases-ethical.html


- OK, but what about in this particular case?

From the National Institutes of Justice
https://www.nij.gov/journals/264/pages/debating-DNA.aspx

A few things worth mentioning, according to this. (Not an expert in this field, just learning more here.
There are some federal laws, and other laws may differ from state to state.)

1. Some states limit pre-conviction DNA samples for violent offenses or sex crimes
2. Crime labs process only the DNA that applies to human identification. They do not process DNA that identifies predisposition to diseases. Most crime labs are incapable of doing that kind of DNA processing.
3. All states with laws allowing preconviction DNA sampling provide a way to expunge profiles if an arrest does not result in a conviction.
4. Courts have viewed collecting and analyzing DNA as a "search" in Fourth Amendment challenges to DNA databases. Usually, a "search" is interpreted to require probable cause and a warrant or, at minimum, individualized suspicion.


Additionally:

The DNA Fingerprint Act of 2005 requires that, beginning January 1, 2009, any adult arrested for a federal crime provide a DNA sample.[2] The law also mandates DNA collection from persons detained under the authority of the United States who are not U.S. citizens or are not lawfully in the country.

Federal law imposes a fine of $250,000 or a year's imprisonment for each instance of wrongdoing involving unauthorized use or disclosure of DNA data collected in an offender or arrestee database. States similarly have penalties, and these vary widely in both fines imposed and imprisonment. State laws also vary with regard to how samples may be used beyond law enforcement and quality control purposes.

My thoughts: It seems to me that, given this is a sex crime against a vulnerable individual, as long as they've obtained a warrant and that pre-conviction DNA is expunged if not convicted, that authorities are within their rights to collect samples from male employees that had access to the patient.

There may be things I'm not aware of and therefore not considering, but, as per the above, I think I'm comfortable with it as stated. I would be interested to hear from anyone still opposed and why, for discussion's sake. Certainly many arguments can be made given this subject matter.

You might want to look at information regarding the requirements for including DNA profile data into CODIS, which is the database law enforcement uses for comparison in identifying unknown DNA profiles. In a case like the one being discussed in this thread any DNA profiles collected in the investigation are not automatically added to CODIS, even if they are collected and analyzed as potential perpetrators in the case. The profiles will only be used in an analysis and comparison to relevant DNA evidence in this case (baby's DNA profile). Baby's profile can and likely will also be run through a CODIS comparison in an attempt to identify a suspect via a match. Baby's profile does not get added to CODIS as a result of this because a comparison using the CODIS database is not the same thing as being entered into the database.

 

[FlightlessDuck]

I see no reason why an innocent person should be required to keep their DNA in a police database. It is the "if you have nothing to hide" argument at the core.

I think maybe this is related to a misunderstanding I have. If you get fingerprints for something -- say an FBI clearance -- do they not keep it on file after that? If not, then I would agree with your about this.

You know what? They probably don't keep it. They probably only keep fingerprints and dna after you have been convicted of something. I don't know enough about law enforcement policies.

Edit: And now I see @cabanafrau explanation.

 

[cabanafrau]

What in the world?? When the story first came out, didn't it say she'd had a near drowning incident when she was 15 and that's why she was there? Is that completely not true?

I read this in the People article too, the woman’s relatives are “outraged, traumatized and in shock by the abuse and neglect of their daughter at Hacienda Healthcare”. I wonder if and how often they visited her. I just CANNOT believe no one knew she was pregnant, until she gave birth!

As far as not noticing the pregnancy, I'll hold the caregivers and medical professionals who are paid to oversee this woman's day to day care and overall medical needs responsible seven days a week before I'll quibble with the idea that visiting family members should have noticed. Surely someone in a persistive vegetative state needs intensive, intimate daily care and would have required hands on, observant medical care in the nine to ten-month timeframe necessary to gestate and give birth to a human being? It's not like a doctor in this circumstance can rely on collecting any information by speaking with the patient and therefore it seems at least one thorough medical exam should have taken place during this timeframe.

 

[NotUrsula]

I'm guessing that the original report of what age she was at the time of her accident probably was from someone who wasn't actually sure and had forgotten her age, because the first quote I read showed it as "about 14 years ago." Particularly if it's an older person telling the story, they can collapse time. Her situation sounds fairly typical of brain damage caused by drowning. https://blog.chocchildrens.org/oxygen-deprivation-near-drowning-can-lead-brain-damage/ CNN says that the court order requires a physical once per year, and that the most recent one was done at a time that would have been a couple of weeks after she was assaulted.

Attorneys have said that she is a member of the San Carlos Apache tribe. If her family live on the San Carlos reservation, that means that the drive to visit would be somewhere between 2-4 hours each way, depending on where the nursing home is located in the Phoenix area, and where the family lives on the reservation, because it is a large one, 1.8M acres, with only one major road running through it. CNN's article said that her mother normally visited 2X per month.