Genetic testing for disease - Would you want to know?

[notoppings]

There are genetic test available for many diseases one example is Huntington's.

What I am trying to get from you is, Would you take a test where the results are 50/50? If you turn up positive, you know you have a disease that will affect you in the future, and it may be passed on to your children. If you test negative all is well.

Some of these test are available to women who are pregnant, so they can decide to terminate or not.

So what do you think? Should an embryo with Down Syndrome or Huntington's be terminated? In the case of the DS child though difficulties will exist the child is normally happy. In the case of the Huntington's child the child will live a normal life up to mid adulthood when the disease will manifest.

If you fell into one of the "At risk" groups.
Would you test yourself?
Would you do it to know how to plan for your future?
Would you test to prevent passing it on to your children?
Could you live with the time bomb in your life, never knowing when it will go off?
Would you prefer never to know?

Should the government step in and test all at risk groups? then we need to think about the insurance companies also, once they get one positive in a family I would imagine that they would drop everyone in that family or force them to test.

The more I think about it the more issues come up.

[Malotis]

If you fell into one of the "At risk" groups.
Would you test yourself?

If I knew for certain I was in an "At risk" group then I would get tested for a reason primarily based on my desire to know everything.


Should an embryo with Down Syndrome or Huntington's be terminated?

I think it's the womans choice to have an abortion regardless of whether or not the kid is at risk for DS. If she think she can handle a child with ds well then good luck. If she thinks she can't handle a child with DS then all the power to her for her right to abort.

Should the government step in and test all at risk groups?

Many questions should be asked before the government should be allowed to implement mandatory testing policies for "At risk groups." For an example, how does "Modern Medicine" define an "At Risk" group. If there is a large amount of criticism for this definition then should we second guess basing government policy on it?

[azelismia]

yup, I think it's a good option to be available. I don't want kids but if I did I would certainly test and make my decisions based from that.

[thod]

Sure I would like to know. I can then alter behavior to mitigate it. Lets say they come back and say you are a retard, you can give up on the books because you ain't gonna make it anyhow. If I knew I was going to drop dead early I could stop paying into the pension fund and blow it all on booze and hookers instead.

[jikin]

I would want to know to ensure that whatever it was wasn't passed on to my children. Also, it would give me a chance to see if there was anything I could change in my habits that could prevent it or hold it off longer.

[Seppuku Savant]

I've never actually been tested. Though, one of the reasons I won't reproduce is because I know certain illnesses run prevalent in my family. I'm not passing anything on, even if it's not as serious as the aforementioned diseases.

[Beery Swine]

I'll answer the questions I feel like.

Yes, I would wanna be tested. Even if there were no current steps I could take to somewhat alleviate the symptoms or delay death There's always the future.

As far as insurance companies go it shouldn't even be an issue, i.e. we should have
FREE HEALTH CARE
in America.

[Sara27]

I would want to be tested for certain diseases. If I could do something about them now or if there is the possiblility of passing them on to offspring. Otherwise, I'm not sure. Health care is an issue. I agree with Beery Swine and most of America that we should all have free health care. Right now I'm on the Placebo Plan. It's not a very good plan since I know all the meds are Tick-Tacks.

Knowing an estimate of death would probably put me into high gear. I'm expecting to live into my 80s, so there isn't as much pressure. The older I get the more pressure I put on myself to do what I want. If a disease drastically cut my life span I would want to know so I can put my affairs in order and do the things that really matter to me.

If I have kids, I'll get the amnio. I would even terminate the pregnancy if certain diseases were detected (i.e. Tasacks, Epidermolysis Bullosa). They're just too painful to want anyone to go through them. I'm not sure about a disease that isn't as serious (i.e. Downs). I can't guess what my thought process would be in that situation at that point in my life.

[darkkodiak]

There are genetic test available for many diseases one example is Huntington's.

What I am trying to get from you is, Would you take a test where the results are 50/50? If you turn up positive, you know you have a disease that will affect you in the future, and it may be passed on to your children. If you test negative all is well.

Some of these test are available to women who are pregnant, so they can decide to terminate or not.

So what do you think? Should an embryo with Down Syndrome or Huntington's be terminated? In the case of the DS child though difficulties will exist the child is normally happy. In the case of the Huntington's child the child will live a normal life up to mid adulthood when the disease will manifest.

If you fell into one of the "At risk" groups.
Would you test yourself?
Would you do it to know how to plan for your future?
Would you test to prevent passing it on to your children?
Could you live with the time bomb in your life, never knowing when it will go off?
Would you prefer never to know?

Should the government step in and test all at risk groups? then we need to think about the insurance companies also, once they get one positive in a family I would imagine that they would drop everyone in that family or force them to test.

The more I think about it the more issues come up.

As for a child during pregnancy being diagnose with a genetic disorder being terminated, that I leave to the parent(s) and I can only imagine the difficulty of the choice or none thereof. I personally wouldn't know what decision I would make until the choice presents itself.

I would definitely want to know if I have any genetic defect that is harmful or that I can pass onto my children. By knowing, it would help a ton with how I would plan my future. As for the time bomb, we all live with that because no one has found a way for immortality as of yet. I live with the notion that one day I will die but knowing how would help me reorganize how I will live my life. That leads to me to never preferring to not know, ignorance is bliss but to me on this issue it's not.

As for the government stepping in to test all risk groups.... iono on that one but the option should always be there for those who want to know.

[TheLastMohican]

I would take the tests (if affordable and practicable), just out of curiosity. I would plan things differently if I knew that I would be so afflicted in the near future.
I would discourage abortion based on the diseases, though. Not only on moral grounds; I am of the opinion that artificial selection pressures are not to be trifled with. Adverse effects are too difficult to predict, and very few diseases render an individual useless.

As far as insurance companies go it shouldn't even be an issue, i.e. we should have
FREE HEALTH CARE
in America.

There is no such thing as free health care. Socialized health care is provided by higher taxes, and that just means that the money is taken from everyone evenly, instead of an incidental basis. It might seem "free" because you do not pay extra for each medical incident, but you are simply paying for a fraction of your own care (and everyone else's).

[Beery Swine]

There is no such thing as free health care. Socialized health care is provided by higher taxes, and that just means that the money is taken from everyone evenly, instead of an incidental basis. It might seem "free" because you do not pay extra for each medical incident, but you are simply paying for a fraction of your own care (and everyone else's).

Okay, the "free" part is just splitting hairs, but I kinda get the impression that you're not exactly a fan of "socialistic" health care, no?

[Monte314]

If the knowledge is actionable, I suppose it might be good to know.