Pros and Cons
One side of me wants infants to get as much DNA testing as possible, recognizing early treatment can vastly improve a child's life in the case of many conditions. Yet critics raise valid points: What if tests show your child is at risk for a condition that will affect them when they are an adult -- Does the parent or state have the right to know? Who tells the child and when? Or should the chlld have the option not to know, in the same way many adults choose not to undergo genetic testing? What happens to the DNA? What safeguards are in place to prevent its use by police; no one wants to believe their child will become a criminal, but if that happens could law enforcement already be able to access their DNA? And what processes do states use to de-identify data? Are we secure that this database can't be hacked?
You don't need to be a conspiracy theorist to admit there are some ethical and security questions here. And you don't need to be a huge privacy advocate to also admit there are some real benefits to those children found to flourish with very early medical intervention.
Must say though, when I learned more about this process and found out how it was done where my daughter was born, I was upset that I knew nothing about the bigger implications of the heel test. Granted, my daughter is a teen now, genetic testing was more expensive and big data wasn't a catch phrase (although I had been covering tech for many years prior to her birth), but you'd hope institutions were more transparent about this whole area. Let consumers know what's going on. Usually, we're much more approachable and agreeable when we're educated.