DNA testing - would you do it?

Would I do it? If, and only if, there was a definite plan of action to fix the problem before birth or immediately following. (see http://www.michaelclancy.com/ for just such a surgery) Even then, I might not do it because the more people who get tested, the more 'reason' others have to get the test done. A woman on the fence will be told, "85% of parents have the testing done" and peer pressure makes the decision.

I'm really not fond of eugenics and try to be careful that my actions don't ever contribute to such a deplorable mindset. Sometimes, this means sacrificing my health or the health of someone I love.

Reply

I'd have to give it a lot more thought but my knee jerk reaction is probably not. Not for something incurable that he/she might never develop. Why live all our lives under a cloud? Also, Sandyone made a good point about employment and insurance.

For something that has the potential of a cure? Of course.

Government database? No. They have far too much information about us already.

Reply

I guess if you would not do it, then you should not let the doctors test for down syndrome or other diseases they test for during pregnancy. I think I would, I would want to know. I like to be prepared, and if you know there is a possibility, then you can research it, know the warnign signs, check it early, and express concerns to the doctor. My youngest son has a weakened immune system, so for him alone, I paid 270 dollars per month for his health insurance. You do what you have to do, and is it fair, yes. He is more likely to need it, and has used it more than my other son. I think that tests are good, and it is good to be prepared. Maybe if I had known about my youngest he would not have had so many illnesses, like scarlett fever. He had a runny nose for two days, then all of a sudden he had a rash all over him. I think it would also make my doctors take his illnesses more seriously. They are expecting him to one day be better. I think it is a good thing, and I would recommend it.

Reply

Anderson

I don't know what you thought you read but I didn't say that. If I were at high risk for a Down child, I might want to know. We'd have more time to prepare.

Many Down kids live long, fulfilling lives and are a joy to their families. That's a long way from dealing with an an incurable, inevitably fatal disease.

It's hard for anyone to say with certainty what they would do so long as the situation is hypothetical.

Reply

Ann Adams: Anderson did not say that you said it. Also, she said Down's Syndrome or OTHER diseases. How would you know if you were at risk for anything if you didn't get tested? Duh!

Reply

Anderson, if I misunderstood what you said, I apologize. You came in right behind me in the comments.

I'm sorry about your son. His was a case where it might have helped to know earlier.

Karen, if my family had a history of a certain disease or if I was part of a group that was at risk for something like sickle cell or other diseases common to specific groups, I'd probably have the test.

If I were an older pregnant woman, I'd probably have the test.

With a routine pregnancy, probably not.

Here's what the poll asked and what I tried to answer:

"They asked parents if they would be willing to have their child genetically tested to determine if he or she was at risk for a disease for which there is no treatment"

To check for an illness that my child might never develop but would certainly be fatal if he/she did? I don't know what good it could do. That list would probably include Huntington's which doesn't manifest until adulthood. I'm not at all sure I'd want to know that my child might not live much past 30.

Reply

Anyways, sorry to interrupt the argument. I think the government is already collecting enough information on us. I would NOT be interested.

Reply

"Duh", Karen? That's pleasant discourse. You'll hurt poor little Ann Adams' feelings and her self esteem will plummet. Ann, please don't leave the board over this!!! (wink, wink)

People actually know that they're at risk for many diseases because of their past health history, their family's health history, their ethnicity, etc. They should then use this knowledge to determine whether they will have further testing done.

I wrongly assumed that this was prenatal testing, but a second reading tells me otherwise. I would probably only have testing done if I knew my kids were at a high risk for a particular disease. Then, I'd only want the testing for that disease. If one of my kids developed a disease, I'd be more likely to test the others, but I think routine testing is a waste of money and peace of mind.

And I sure as heck don't think that the government can be trusted with such sensitive information. That would be another reason for me to decline testing, even if my kids were at high risk for something. Just knowing that they're high risk will keep me closer attuned to symptoms and *then* we can seek aggressive treatment.

Reply

"How would you know if you were at risk for anything if you didn't get tested? Duh!"

Karen, You shouldn't be so quick to 'Duh!'. Duh indeed.

Reply

Sandyone

I'm much thicker skinned than that but thanks for the kind words.

For once you and I seem to be on the same page or close to it.

I read it as prenatal testing too. Perhaps I deserve the DUH!!

Reply

Just went back and read it again. It doesn't change my opinion about testing for incurable diseases or the establishment of yet another government database.

At least not now. I've been known to change my mind from time to time.

Reply