Would you get your gene sequence tested?

piggeh

piggeh

piggeh

Associate
Joined
27 Jan 2011
Posts
1,486
Or have you?

I just watched Adam Wishart's documentary about genetic testing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELrvJ3R_Xk0&NR=1

A lot of the time it seems to make sense where a family has a history of a certain condition, so you could then screen a foetus to ensure your baby does not have a serious disability from heridatary conditions. If my family had a history of huntingtons or sickle cell, or other genetic diseases, I'd want them screened out to ensure they have a better chance of being healthy.

But would you do it for your own genetic sequence to see if you're at a higher rate of disease or conditions later in life? I don't know how I would take it if I find out I had a condition which could not be prevented and in which I had a high chance of getting. On the other hand if it is something where some lifestyle changes could dramatically reduce the risk, then it would be useful. With the tests costing about $199 these days (American company) it's pretty cheap to get done and within reach for most, but it still seems to be something people don't really think about doing. I'm quite tempted to get it done, as I'm a pessimist anyway and such results would probably only prove me right :p
 
Yes, but that price is still an obstacle. It's a lot of money to spend on something which is interesting rather than useful.
Got better things to spend a £100+ on.
 
If I stumbled across it and was in the place at the time I would, but probs wouldn't go out of my way for it..
 
Of course.
I don't see why it can be bad, if they tell you that it is certain you will x disease then you can plan ahead and do things you wanted to do before you get it.
 
This isn't as easy a question as it seems. It seems clear cut when you are talking about serious genetical diseases, but it isn't, we would have lost some of the brightest/most creative people in history if we aborted foetuses through screening.

Stephen Hawking for one example.

How do you judge the right to life based on your version of quality of that life. Is it not better to live 10,15,20 years than not live at all?

Now what would be more sensible is the ability to end someones life, euthanasia, when said disease became unbearable to the sufferer.

Then you are talking about determining your risk to health issues....well, that's not a given, it's only an increased chance.

I can imagine then in America that insurance companies would want to know and then a) not cover you at all or b) charge you insanely high premiums for something that is only a chance.

It would be a very slippery slope to start on.
 
A lot on there seem to be of the opinion 'ignorance is bliss'. I don't really get that. Surely better to know the markers so you can look out for things. But I guess its additional worry that people don't really want to know about.
 
I don't think I'd want to know if I have some horrible disease in store for me in later life. It would constantly play on my mind.

Ignorance can be for the best.
 
It would depend on wether or not the company doing the testing, could 100% categorically guarantee that the results would be for my eyes only, & not sold on to 3rd parties.

Otherwise i could see mortgage companies either flat out refusing a mortgage to some one, or hitting them with higher fees because there results have thrown up some "troubling" genetic markers, that may be indicative of potential health concerns at a later date.
 
VoG said:
It would depend on wether or not the company doing the testing, could 100% categorically guarantee that the results would be for my eyes only, & not sold on to 3rd parties.

Otherwise i could see mortgage companies either flat out refusing a mortgage to some one, or hitting them with higher fees because there results have thrown up some "troubling" genetic markers, that may be indicative of potential health concerns at a later date.
Click to expand...

Good points you made there. I have 50% of having Huntington's disease due my Dad having it. I am very reluctant to get a test via the official channels (NHS/GP/HD Clinic) for the reasons you mention.

I have 2 old kids and I want to know if I have the gene, so I can work out what to do next. My kids don't know yet (I asked them if they wanted to know some head**** stuff and they declined) and I would like to get myself tested so I can inform them as necessary, depending on the results.

If anyone knows where I can get cheap genetic testing for huntington's I would be very interested. The 23andme site mentioned in the documentary does not appear to test for this disease.

I think I am against screening at birth, but I haven't yet had a good chance to debate it with myself :D
 
VoG said:
It would depend on wether or not the company doing the testing, could 100% categorically guarantee that the results would be for my eyes only, & not sold on to 3rd parties.

Otherwise i could see mortgage companies either flat out refusing a mortgage to some one, or hitting them with higher fees because there results have thrown up some "troubling" genetic markers, that may be indicative of potential health concerns at a later date.
Click to expand...


I would be very interested to get tested to see what comes of it but as pointed out the potential of other parties gaining access to the information is enough to ensure I wont have it done. I simply don't trust any company enough to keep the test results to themselves as I'm sure the information would eventually become valuable for somebody to dig deep and tempt them to sell it on.
 
Doonhamer said:
I would be very interested to get tested to see what comes of it but as pointed out the potential of other parties gaining access to the information is enough to ensure I wont have it done. I simply don't trust any company enough to keep the test results to themselves as I'm sure the information would eventually become valuable for somebody to dig deep and tempt them to sell it on.
Click to expand...

Surely it depends on the info you give them.

You'll need an address, but you can still put fake name etc down.
 
Alzheimer's runs in both sides of my family. Theres no way in hell that I'm getting tested for it, though. Don't know how I'd take it. Probably not very well.

However, CF runs on my dad's side, so I probably will get tested for that before I decide to have children. If i have the gene, my partner will be tested. Takes 2 parents with the gene for CF to have a chance of occurring in children.
 
Last edited:
Huntingdon's disease runs in my family and I had a 50% chance of having it as do my brother and sister. I opted to take the test - I just had to know. It's a personal thing I guess. Thankfully I tested negative. My sister and brother have both decided not to test.

There are implications regarding testing such as mortgages, life / health insurance. So not always a simple decision to make. For diseases like Huntingdon's the NHS will have you undergo counselling before giving the test.
 
Freakbro said:
This isn't as easy a question as it seems. It seems clear cut when you are talking about serious genetical diseases, but it isn't, we would have lost some of the brightest/most creative people in history if we aborted foetuses through screening.

Stephen Hawking for one example.
Click to expand...

What!? Stephen Hawking was healthy until his twenties.

Knowing one has a genetic disease allows them to undergo IVF treatment to eliminate any defective genes, preventing abortions in the first place.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom