This is a step towards a greater equality between men and women in the field of parenthood. For now on, no women would be able to just walk in with a toddler, point the finger at a man and say "He's the daddy" without any valid proof.

On another subject, I find Mr. Borchelt quite condescending in his comment about this new way of doing the test. I don't understand how the term "You are not the father" can be listed as a "Poorly interpreted or understood results". It sounds like the cries of a middle-men, looking at his business being threatened by a newcomer in the market, not man of science.

Thank you for the morning sunshine you have put in my life today, Amy. Now, If we can just have a masculine contraceptive pill, I would be ready to call it sexual freedom for men.

"Now, If we can just have a masculine contraceptive pill," I don't think it's that far away http://www.malecontraceptives.org/. Yes it would be nice.

Yes Vlad, it's not far but it's not there yet. I like to count my money when it's inside of my wallet, if you know what I mean.

Having to wait half a century for this is a bit long...

My issue with the kits is the false advertising.

It's something like $29.95 for the kit, and $200.00 if you want the test processed and the results sent back to you.

(Plus, there are the privacy issues meaning I want a third party in there responsible for ensuring the information is deleted and purged from the company's computers, and not harvested and sold....)

But these days, I think that DNA paternity tests should be mandatory whenever a child comes into contact with the state: divorce, adoption, CPS, .... But again, any information beyond the result itself needs to be purged after the result is determined.

It's something like $29.95 for the kit, and $200.00 if you want the test processed and the results sent back to you.

Not quite, Jerry. According to the article:

"Total cost is about $150, including the price of the kit and a $119 laboratory processing fee. For another $200, users can purchase validated tests that meet legal requirements for determining paternity, Fogg said."

Also, the results are available online in 3 - 5 business days after you send the swabs to the lab.

(You're welcome, Amy. This should get interesting!)

Maybe I am dreaming but I can't wait for the day when the science of biometry will turn one's DNA as usable as a PIN number in a ATM. The day this technological innovation will arrive, we wouldn't have to deal with messy things like paternity fraud.

As I said, Just dreaming... :)

I used to work in a paternity testing laboratory.
What stinks is the cost of just the kit. It's essentially a couple of sponges on the end of plastic sticks and they're charging 29.95 for it? I hope postage is included...
But seriously, the testing for this isn't something they're going to keep on file. They don't sequence your genetic code or anything, they do something like, 12-22 different alleles, and they look at the mom's and they look at the dad's, and they make sure the kid has one from each, and if the kid's got some allele that doesn't belong to either, well, it had to come from somewhere didn't it?

I think it's awesome they're marketing it in drugstores. I am so tired of other people trying to control what's available to us. I wish I could get my own antibiotics in the drug store, instead of trying to get an appointment with a doctor. So the next time I get strep throat I don't have to spend 50 bucks and an hour and a half when I already know what I've got (and I have health insurance).

In many other countries, birth control pills are available off the shelf. Considering they have fewer side effects than aspirin, (and duh, you can always just stop taking the damn things if you don't like the effects), and the battles fought in the FDA over it, it's obviously a political issue. More pandering to the fundies.

More pandering to the fundies.

And big pharma.

More pandering to the fundies.

And big pharma.

And justified lawsuit avoidance because some idiot doesn't stop taking them even after seeing pink elephants and vomiting up her kidney - and decides to sue because "they were on the shelf, they must be safe."

The sad thing about genetic tests: in many cases it doesn't
matter.

There's this,

Most states rely on a 500-year-old English common law doctrine, which holds that a married man is always legally presumed to be the father of a child born of the marriage (middle link) Law.com.

Meanwhile, courts across the country are trying to redraw the legal lines of paternity now that genetic testing and welfare reform are colliding with 500 years of common law tradition, which has presumed that all children born in a marriage are the husband's responsibility, whether or not he is the biological father. In May 2003, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that men who have admitted paternity, even if the mother lied to them, are not allowed to introduce DNA evidence to challenge support orders. Carnell Smith has been trying to push the issue to the U.S. Supreme Court, so far without success (last link, Reason magazine.

I read many people, mostly women, who write "why not just get a DNA test?" Because on many, if not most, cases it doesn't matter. By-and-large, the courts will not overturn paternity, even with disconfirmatory genetic tests.

I'm still mangling links. Last link is here.

It's not pandering.

The reason you can't buy your own antibiotics is to avoid the shit that's happening in Mexico. They hand them out like candy down there, and there's all kinds of resistant infections because of it.

MRSA anyone? Hepatitis C??

Good point, Brian. When I lived in Hong Kong, I saw he same problem. People bought penicillin for common ailments, leading to resistant strains of staff and the like.

yeah, Jeff, that was my first thought too... It won't make a difference. The things in the article were kinda happy faced too... Reid is lucky that ex-girlfriend isn't coming after him for back child support.

And? Who loses the most by the stupidity and lying of adults? Children. Blood relations are really important to some people... there are those who don't think that the raising of a child makes you the parent. So when they find out that maybe it was the milkman delivering more than he should'a? The ugliness that ensues will disproportionately affect the kid.

I think this solves the problem that isn't there to be solved. Sure, if there is a full on court proceeding, tests are good. But something you can get from rite-aid if you are curious? Sometimes there is a surprisingly long distance between happiness and truth... but people don't know how far until they can't return.

I agree that DNA testing for paternity should be done with EVERY birth. Why should only the woman be assured that she is parenting her own offspring? After all, what DECENT woman would ever object to such a policy? They should be happy to demonstrate to their man that they are faithful and trustworthy, right?

This might lead to less cheating on the part of women. Unfortunately, it would lead inevitably to an increase in the number of secret abortions.

After all, what DECENT woman would ever object to such a policy? They should be happy to demonstrate to their man that they are faithful and trustworthy, right?

I can't think of anything a DECENT woman could want more - after pushing out a child (or two) - than to hear her husband saying, "Honey, I've got the DNA kit. Let's test the kid." That's a marriage that's going to last.

...leading to resistant strains of staff and the like.

I believe you mean "staph" (Staphylococcus aureus).

What's the problem with abortions, secret or not? At least there won't be a child to support, so problem solved for the guy!

A small % of people are Chimeras and the test may lead them astray.

"That's a marriage that's going to last." Well that depends on why he got the kit. Also he doesn't need her DNA to find out if the kid is his. Take the swab and get the test done without telling her there are three results:

1) The kids your and you really should give her a pack of get out of jail free cards you distrusting asshole.

2) It's not your and now you know. Now what?

3) Your too stupid to do the test right and the results are wrong. You have no way of knowing and could go off half cocked on bad

Now if she got pregnant around when you started dating I can see the point. Since she did the nasty before you met you really don't have much cause to complain. So now you want to know if the kid is yours. If you go to the lab there is a small chance that you'll be seen and questions will be asked, lots of needless embarrassment and it's more expensive. However most of us have the one buddy we can claim to be getting it for (I was single and a virgin and I must have bought 15 pregnancy test in high school). I can see the benefit in these situations.

"At least there won't be a child to support, so problem solved for the guy!" Um so after the abortion she still has to support the terminated fetus? I'd say problem solved for both sides. Also this won't work till the kids born. Now I'm all pro-choice but once he/she is born even the most militant advocates think it's too late to abort.

"A small % of people are Chimeras and the test may lead them astray." Yeah I wouldn't have thought of that one. I'm not sure if they can do DNA using their method on smiley spray but that should solve the problem.

"And justified lawsuit avoidance because some idiot doesn't stop taking them even after seeing pink elephants and vomiting up her kidney - and decides to sue because "they were on the shelf, they must be safe.""

By that logic, laundry detergent shouldn't be sold without a prescription.

"More pandering to the fundies.

And big pharma." Well not sure how big pharma benifits from the stuff being behind the counter. In fact if the shit was sold over the counter then they would be more set. They could keep coming up with random off label uses and extent their patents. So long as the law suites didn't keep nailing them. BTW if it was all over the counter how many people would take their BP meds as opposed to Oxy or any other fun drugs.

If big pharma was as evil and in charge as some people think then oxy would be a high priced over the counter medication. People are stoned out of their mind and the company is selling the stuff by the truck load.

By that logic, laundry detergent shouldn't be sold without a prescription.

Check the warning label sometime and you'll wonder why it isn't.

Most people use laundry detergent and are fairly familiar with its workings. Plus, if you're huffing laundry detergent, you're not using it in accordance with its intended use. Your lawsuit will hit a snag. You still might win it, but it will take some fancy footwork on the part of your lawyer.

OTOH: Let's say you're taking Miracle Drug A and you have a bad reaction but don't stop taking it. You sue. Most people on juries lack any level of medical sophistication and have most likely been confused by the warning label on an aspirin bottle at one time in their lives. The result is that they would buy your argument that pharmaceutical companies are evil and rich and caused you great pain - despite your own stupidity. After all, someone has to pay, right? The result, you get a bus load of money and we pay more for drugs.