posted on January 6, 2004 11:39:38 AM new
If you could find out, years in advance, that you had a predisposition for Parkinson's disease, breast cancer, Alzheimer's or diabetes, would you want to know?
Would it be helpful to find out what your medical future might hold? Would you be worried that your insurance company could use this medical prediction against you even before you became ill?
Earlier this year, the medical community achieved a milestone in medicine: the complete decoding of the human genome. We are just beginning to understand the enormous benefits of this achievement. Just a few years ago, teams of the world's best researchers spent their careers searching through family studies for clues that might identify the genes responsible for specific human diseases. Today, a graduate student accessing the publicly available sequence can identify in just a few short weeks the genes responsible for many devastating illnesses.
Thanks to the work of the world's top scientists and doctors we are making "predictive" medicine a real possibility, but along with this exciting new field there comes a new fear......
http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20040104-102915-1974r.htm
posted on January 6, 2004 12:41:35 PM new
Yes, I would want to know. Especially in regards to Parkinson's Disease, which is inheritable. If I was planning ever to have a family I would want to know that in particular. And if I was a carrier of such a condition, I would adopt instead of giving birth. Parkinson's doesn't show up until you are in your 40s or 50s, by which time you've probably already passed it on. Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there --Clare Booth Luce
posted on January 6, 2004 01:51:38 PM new
I think I would too, if I were younger, but would want to read the 'protection' laws to prevent insurance companies and employers from being able to access this information.
I might be like those who would pay for this test myself if it weren't too awfully expensive. Probably is though.
Do these issues concern you bunni? The insurance company or employer concerns?
I know years ago, maybe the mid 90's? when my husband wanted to increase his life insurance through his employer they wouldn't do so unless he was willing to submit to an AIDS test. He did, but we were both bothered by the 'requirement' to do so.
And I know on insurance papers we've filled out we were required to give the past three years medical history they before decided if they're willing to insure us or not. Maybe these issues are covered in the bill the Senate has passed??? I don't know.
They sure have moved 'quickly' on getting this bill passed ....only took them 8 years?
Two friends of mine, sisters, have a mother that's had Alzheimer's
for close to 15 years now. They both share it's a constant worry for them. But I question if having that knowledge years ago would have changed anything.
posted on January 6, 2004 05:17:54 PM new
You raise an interesting point - but it has provoked a different question for me.
Everytime I go to a doctor now I waive the right to privacy. I sign off that they can submit my information for billing consultation and insurance.
If they have such tests soon for a tendancy to develop these diseases and I go to a different doctor and ask for them WITHOUT agreeing to share the information and paying for them out of my own pocket. I really wonder if they will agree to treat me and perform the tests or if they will refuse to have anything to do with me because they would be liable if they fail to keep this information secure - when everything in their office is set up to make sharing it automatic. They also have to trust their entire staff to keep a secret within the community when they are used to releasing it so widely that normally it would be hard to know who leaked it - the doctor's office or one of the many others with access.
posted on January 6, 2004 05:41:02 PM new
Linda--I, too, would want it so that employers couldn't use this against you. I am more uncertain about the insurance companies, though. Face it, it is the insurance companies that would bepaying for treatment in the event the disease strikes. Perhaps the fair thing would be to have people who have definitely got such diseases in their future to pay higher premiums...? Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there --Clare Booth Luce
posted on January 6, 2004 06:12:17 PM new
Trouble is there is seldom a 'definately' to be had in these things. You usually have an increased risk not a certainty.
But insurance companies can use such probable data to set premiums now. You pay more for car insurance if you are in an age group that is more likely to have an accident.
The problem to me is that many of us are going to avoid testing that could help us take action to avoid a risk if we know we may pay more for having found out about it - even if the information allows us to alter our diet or take a drug to protect ourselves.
posted on January 6, 2004 06:34:00 PM new "Trouble is there is seldom a 'definately' to be had in these things. You usually have an increased risk not a certainty."
How true that is! But when you pay your insurance premiums, you will be charged for a certainty!
Also, when you have an auto accident or a homeowners claim your premiums will rise!
What a racket!
posted on January 8, 2004 05:13:42 PM new
Have any of you seen the movie Gattica (sp?) with Jude Law, Ethan Hawk and Uma Thurman?? This thread reminds me of that science fiction movie slowing becoming a reality. (Where one is labled according to their genetic "desirablity" or "defectiveness".) Good Movie if you havent seen it!
