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...
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.
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?)
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.
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.
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...
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