Here my take on the blood sample thing. I think he should be forced to give a blood sample. Its a simple choice, his right to privacy or millions of people's right to live. True, they MIGHT be able to find a cure another way, but what about those that die because it took longer to find the cure? Yes, even if they do get in his blood they still might be unable to cure the disease, but I think it is worth the risk. As was said before, the needs of the many outweighs the need of the few, or the one. Spock said the same thing in Star Trek II. It is inescapable logic. Are drafted soldiers given a choice? No, they are forced to join the army and risk their lives for the somthing more important than themselves , their country.

Originally posted by: Bossk
It's his body... his decision. Plain and simple.

Would you say that if someone you knew - a family member[s), friend(s), or youself was going to die because this man's "choice". Point is, this isn't just about his body. It's about all the other bodies that have this disease. And if is a choice of forcing him to live like a lab rat or letting millions die, I think the choice is clear. Sorry Bossk, but that is my honest opinion.

Originally posted by: JediSage As far as photos and fingerprints go, I'm under no obligation to provide either, for any reason.

I think you could be forced to have fingerprints taken if you were a suspect in a crime. I believe the same holds true for DNA. I believe the cops would need a court order first. Like search warrents. Of course I could be wrong, I am not a lawyer.

Originally posted by: JediSage

I work at an alcohol/drug rehabilitation center that has residential programs. One of the programs has men that are basically 1 step away from going back to jail. I believe that it's mandatory for them to give a DNA sample to department of corrections as part of their deal. IMO, that's Orwellian.

I don't think its Orwellian, I think its a logical precaution. It is reasonable and logical to think these people might comitt crimes again. They are not taking a presumption of innocence away from these people, if they are suppected of a crime, they would still get a fair trial, and they guilt beyond a reasonal doubt. In New Jersey, we have somthing called Megan's law. It requires that the residents of a town are notified that a convicted sex offender in moving into the area. The reason? So that people can take reasonable precautions agaist these kinds of sick people. An 8 year old named Megan a sexually assaulted and killed by a sex offender who living down the block for her. Had the parents known that the sex offender was living so close, they could have kept a closer watch over the kid and maybe she would not be dead right now. Is wanting to save an 8 year old girl from being sexually molested and murdered Orwellian?