LATEST POPULAR PRIORITY RANDOM

Prev Question | Next Question

884 hits

2.3 (4 votes)

Share

Favorite | Flag

12 years ago by KikiPeepers

Email to a Friend

Post/Bookmark:

Permalink:

Would you treat yourself for ailments you haven't had yet, if your genetic testing knew what you were pre-disposed to? What would you do if a genetic test showed that you were at higher risk of dropping dead of a heart attack or dying from cancer? Would you run out and get on every cardiac heart medication you could find? Would you curl up into a fetal position with a bottle of gin, ready to drunkenly consign yourself to the cruelties of fate? Or would you do nothing, figuring that these tests represent a risk and not a certainty? These are exactly the types of questions that are being tossed about due to the emerging presence of DNA maps, which can tell individuals precisely what genetic cards they've been dealt. At $50,000 per test, it's clearly out of reach for most people, but new technology promises genomes for $5,000 each, and costs may soon drop to as little as $1,000 per... http://healthcare.change.org/blog/v...

(options)

Remember my vote

Put This Question on Your Page (MySpace, Livejournal, Blog, etc)

[Preview] EMBED CODE:

Bottom Last Post

HaroldtheBat Female, 18-29 Western US Joined: 17 yrs, 3 mos ago 27,379 Posts	12 yrs ago - Monday 5/3/10 - 1:25:50 PM EST (GMT-5) quote message No, I'll wait until it actually happens. No reason to stress until then.
Poess Female, 30-39 Western US Joined: 16 yrs, 1 mos ago 7,875 Posts	12 yrs ago - Monday 5/3/10 - 1:50:52 PM EST (GMT-5) quote message I probably wouldn't have had the genetic testing to begin with.
angeleyesgr Female, 18-29 Europe Joined: 18 yrs, 5 mos ago 27,841 Posts	12 yrs ago - Monday 5/3/10 - 3:18:52 PM EST (GMT-5) quote message No, I wouldn't...I think that doing that would make me a hypochondriac in the end. I'd rather have something diagnosed first as an illness and treat than actually treat myself before something happens. I know that I might get heart problems in the future considering that my grandma had hypertrophy cardiomyopathy and needed a heart transplant and meds for the rest of her life but as long as I'm fine now I won't take anything.
Koto Female, 18-29 Southern US Joined: 16 yrs, 7 mos ago 3,971 Posts	12 yrs ago - Monday 5/3/10 - 8:59:13 PM EST (GMT-5) quote message If I had a high chance of developing something that could be prevented or delayed with treatment, then yeah, I'd take medication/treatment for it. I'm not going to sit around eating cheeseburgers waiting for heart disease to show up.
anidiot Male, 18-29 Southern US Joined: 17 yrs ago 2,370 Posts	12 yrs ago - Tuesday 5/4/10 - 12:05:46 AM EST (GMT-5) quote message Kiki, the way you phrased this question sucks; you make it sound like someone going through chemo because they might develop cancer. The article seems to be talking about prevention, like running, cholesterol medicine to prevent heart disease. This is absolutely reasonable. It is already done, just this is using a bit more information.(If you have only slightly elevated cholesterol but a family history of heart disease, wouldn't you expect a doctor to prescribe you medicine?)
Wubba D Male, 18-29 Australia / NZ Joined: 17 yrs, 3 mos ago 1,500 Posts	12 yrs ago - Tuesday 5/4/10 - 2:36:38 AM EST (GMT-5) quote message Parkinson's disease runs in my family, and if stem cell therapies were available to help prevent it (which, for some stupid ******* reason, isn't the case. Thanks for that, Christians. You've ruined my later stages of life), I'd go for it.
Ryuuichi Female, 18-29 Asia Joined: 12 yrs ago 19 Posts	12 yrs ago - Tuesday 5/4/10 - 10:35:24 AM EST (GMT-5) quote message If I already had a the test and KNOW that I would drop dead soon, then, yes. Otherwise, I would prefer to have not taken the test.
Wanderer moderator Female, 60-69 Western US Joined: 19 yrs ago 18,724 Posts	12 yrs ago - Tuesday 5/4/10 - 10:38:37 AM EST (GMT-5) quote message Neither extreme. If testing showed I had a predisposition to heart attacks, I would lose weight and exercise. I wouldn't take heart medicine. You know, prevention, not therapy.
Abzurd moderator Male, 70+ Canada Joined: 17 yrs, 3 mos ago 81,504 Posts	12 yrs ago - Wednesday 5/5/10 - 1:17:34 AM EST (GMT-5) quote message On Tuesday 5/4/10 - 10:38:37 AM Wanderer wrote: Neither extreme. If testing showed I had a predisposition to heart attacks, I would lose weight and exercise. I wouldn't take heart medicine. You know, prevention, not therapy. this
julzz Female, 18-29 Australia / NZ Joined: 17 yrs, 4 mos ago 21 Posts	12 yrs ago - Saturday 5/8/10 - 1:14:12 AM EST (GMT-5) quote message I'm sure it can't be good to treat yourself for something you don't have, esp if you're using over the counter medicines that you haven't talked about with you doc. But, the heart disease example is rather logical. If only more people thought like that...
john1993 Male, 13-17 Midwest US Joined: 12 yrs ago 106 Posts	12 yrs ago - Saturday 5/8/10 - 5:51:58 PM EST (GMT-5) quote message if it was like actual treatment for it then no because it wouldn't do anything, it's like taking antibiotics when you're not sick, it doesn't help, but i clicked yes because i was thinking of something more like a booster shot, where u get shots every couple years so you never get it at all
ladiesfirst9 Female, 18-29 Canada Joined: 11 yrs, 10 mos ago 4,248 Posts	11 yrs ago, 10 mos ago - Sunday 7/18/10 - 4:44:46 PM EST (GMT-5) quote message How about we dont mess with nature and screw up everything as we know it ?

You need to be logged in to post a reply New to YT? Create a Free Account ~ Have an Account? Log In

Top