| Course | SOS-3700 Challenges in U.S. and Global Public Health |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 5 |
| Paper type | Discussion forum: initial response and two comments |
| Length | About 596 words |
| Format | Discussion post with APA 7 citations |
| School | Thomas Edison State University |
| Program | B.S. in Health Studies |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for SOS 3700 Module 5
Module 5 Discussion: Individual Rights and Newborn Screening
A Drop of Blood Kept for Twenty-Three Years: Newborn Screening, Storage and the Right to Be Asked
When my daughter was born last year, a nurse pricked her heel and filled a card with a few drops of blood. I knew it was for newborn screening, which tests for dozens of rare but serious conditions such as phenylketonuria. I did not know until this module that New Jersey keeps those cards for 23 years, or that in 2022 a public defender's office learned that state police had obtained a stored blood spot by subpoena to test a child's DNA in connection with a decades-old crime. That case shows the ethical issue clearly: the screening is not the problem; what happens to the leftover blood afterward is.
Newborn screening is one of public health's great successes, and nearly every baby in the country is tested without written parental consent. That approach can be justified because the conditions are serious, treatment must begin within days and the benefit goes directly to the child. Storage and reuse are different. Residual spots can support quality control, test development and research, all of which have real public value (Therrell & Hannon, 2012). But storage for decades creates a genetic record of almost the entire population, and the uses can drift far from the purpose parents assumed.
Other states have already faced this. Texas destroyed more than five million stored spots after parents sued over their use for research without consent, and Minnesota destroyed many after its supreme court held that the state's genetic privacy law applied to them. Those outcomes cost researchers valuable samples, which suggests that ignoring parents' views can backfire on public health itself.
Parents are not opposed to research. In a national survey, most respondents said they would be willing to let residual spots be used for research, but far fewer were comfortable with that happening without being asked (Botkin et al., 2012). Members of state newborn screening advisory committees have voiced similar concerns about trust and consent (Rothwell et al., 2011). The textbook frames individual rights questions as a balance between the state's interest in protecting health and a person's liberty and privacy (Wilensky & Teitelbaum, 2023). Here, the balance tips differently for screening and for storage. I would keep mandatory screening but require a simple permission choice for storage beyond a short quality control period, and bar police access without a warrant. That respects parents and protects the trust that keeps screening nearly universal.
Comment on Marcus's Post
Marcus, you worried that adding a consent step for storage might make some parents refuse screening altogether. That is a fair concern, because screening only works if nearly every newborn is tested. But the Texas and Minnesota cases suggest the bigger risk to screening comes from losing public trust after people learn their child's blood was used without their knowledge. Keeping the two decisions separate, so that declining storage never affects the screening itself, could address your concern. Do you think hospital staff would have time to explain both choices clearly?
Comment on Danielle's Post
Danielle, I liked your suggestion of an opt-out rather than an opt-in system for research use. It would probably preserve more samples. The survey evidence makes me think it could work if the notice is real, given before birth during prenatal care rather than handed over with a stack of discharge papers. An opt-out is only ethical if parents actually know they can say no. I would still treat police access differently, since no form of advance consent really covers a criminal investigation.
References
Botkin, J. R., Rothwell, E., Anderson, R., Stark, L., Goldenberg, A., Lewis, M., Burbank, M., & Wong, B. (2012). Public attitudes regarding the use of residual newborn screening specimens for research. Pediatrics, 129(2), 231-238. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2011-0970
Rothwell, E. W., Anderson, R. A., Burbank, M. J., Goldenberg, A. J., Lewis, M. H., Stark, L. A., Wong, B., & Botkin, J. R. (2011). Concerns of newborn blood screening advisory committee members regarding storage and use of residual newborn screening blood spots. American Journal of Public Health, 101(11), 2111-2116. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2010.200485
Therrell, B. L., & Hannon, W. H. (2012). Newborn dried blood spot screening: Residual specimen storage issues. Pediatrics, 129(2), 365-366. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2011-3416
Wilensky, S. E., & Teitelbaum, J. B. (2023). Essentials of health policy and law (5th ed.). Jones & Bartlett Learning.
SOS 3700 Module 5 instructions, in plain terms
Module 5 brings the Public Health Policy and Ethics forum, one of ten graded discussions sharing 25 percent of the SOS-3700 grade. First comes your answer to the question, then two or more replies, each of which has to add evidence, a reason or a question instead of simple agreement. Comments that only agree do not count; agreement or disagreement must be stated and supported. Because the module's subject is the clash between personal rights and community protection, forum questions here usually ask you to defend or attack one rule that limits liberty or privacy for the public good, such as disease reporting, school vaccine mandates or newborn screening, using the textbook's balancing approach.
Inside the SOS 3700 Module 5 example
The initial response opens with a personal moment that leads directly to the issue, then makes its key move: separating newborn screening, which is easy to justify, from long-term storage and reuse, which raises the real ethical question. It gives the public value of stored samples a fair hearing before turning to the risks. Two state cases show consequences, and survey research shows what parents actually think, which keeps the post from resting on opinion. The writer applies the textbook's balance of state interest against individual rights to each policy separately and ends with a specific proposal. Each comment engages a classmate's argument: the first answers a worry with evidence and a question, the second refines a classmate's idea with a condition.
SOS 3700 Module 5 rubric: what earns full marks
Discussion activities receive a grade from 0 to 100 based on the quality and quantity of participation, use of course information and responsiveness to classmates, as the syllabus explains. In an ethics forum, mentors reward a clear position, a fair account of the opposing interest and justification drawn from the course framework rather than personal preference alone. Evidence about consequences or public views, cited properly, strengthens a position. Posts that distinguish related issues, as this one separates screening from storage, show analytical care. Comments earn credit by advancing the thread with new information, a reasoned disagreement or a question, and by staying respectful when classmates disagree. Professional, proofread writing is part of the expectation.
SOS 3700 Module 5 help from the desk
Ethics posts often stall at stating a feeling, such as that privacy matters, without saying what policy should follow or why the opposing interest loses. Name the competing interests, decide which should prevail in this case and explain the reason. Another common gap is treating every public health measure as one issue; separate the parts of a policy that raise different questions. Check facts about court cases and state laws before citing them. Use your own experience if it helps, but keep the focus on the policy. In comments, respond to the classmate's actual argument. Our desk will write an opening post and two replies on your own Module 5 question, free for a first request.
Write yours, or have the desk draft it
This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Thomas Edison State University document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.
More SOS 3700 and B.S. in Health Studies sample papers
- SOS 3700 Module 1: Public Health Systems Discussion: U.S. and England
- SOS 3700 Module 2: Final Project Problem Statement: SNAP Soda Waivers
- SOS 3700 Module 3: Written Assignment: Loper Bright and Health Agencies
- SOS 3700 Module 4: Final Project Background Draft: SNAP Restrictions
- SOS 3700 Module 6: Written Assignment: Insurance and Public Health Funding
- SOS 3700 Module 7: Written Assignment: The ACA and Braidwood
- SOS 3700 Module 8: Global Policy Discussion: The Pandemic Agreement
- SOS 3700 Module 9: Written Assignment: Road Deaths in the U.S. and Abroad
- SOS 3700 Module 10: Final Project: Health Policy Analysis Paper on SNAP
- SOS 3200 Module 6: Stress Management Plan: The Relaxation Response, Mindfulness and a Personal Plan
- HEA 3060 Module 6: Fathers' Health Paper: Paternal Depression, Involvement and Paternity Leave
- HEA 3050 Module 4: Intimate Partner Violence Paper: What Screening in Clinics Can and Cannot Do
- HEA 3071 Module 6: Alzheimer's Disease Case Study: Amyloid, Tau and the First Disease-Modifying Drugs
SOS 3700 Module 5 questions, answered
Where can I find a free SOS 3700 Module 5 sample paper?
This page has the entire ethics forum entry: an initial response on newborn blood spot storage and consent, two comments on classmates' posts and APA references.
Why is newborn screening done without written consent?
The conditions are serious, treatment must begin within days and the benefit goes directly to the child, which most ethicists and states accept as justification.
How long does New Jersey keep newborn blood spots?
New Jersey has kept residual newborn screening blood spots for 23 years, a period that drew attention after a police subpoena for one in a criminal case.
Do parents support research on newborn blood spots?
National survey data show most adults would allow research use, but far fewer accept it without being asked for permission.
What individual rights issues come up in public health policy?
Liberty, privacy and bodily autonomy, which public health measures such as quarantine, mandatory reporting, vaccination rules and screening programs can limit to protect others.