HealingWell
Search Close Search
☰

OTC genetic testing

Support Forums
>
Ulcerative Colitis
✚ New Topic ✚ Reply
❬ ❬ Previous Thread |Next Thread ❭ ❭
Posted 5/11/2010 9:55 PM (GMT 0)
I just saw this on Yahoo!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/10/AR2010051004904.html?g=0

I'm all for it, especially for people who have been adopted and don't know what their risks are. Of course, in the beginning the results probably won't be that accurate. But I can imagine a future (way down the road) in which we can find out the genetic risks of obtaining certain diseases in the womb and treating those diseases when the baby is still in the womb. I don't know. I little far-fetched I suppose.
Posted 5/12/2010 4:26 AM (GMT 0)
I agree it seems like something very exciting and helpful but there are still a few kinks to be worked out.

Where I live we have had to actively lobby against insurance companies using the results of any genetic test to set customer insurance rates or to exclude patients, especially children, because of their parent(s)' illnesses. We need to be very active and careful about who has access to that information. Right now the genetic testing companies are not required to keep the results confidential. This has been an issue in our state legislature since 1992. As far as I know, the US House and Senate haven't addressed this so it is up to each state to set privacy standards.

There is a great older movie, "Gattica," about the potential uses of genetic predispositions in school and in the work place. It is an early Jude Law movie recommended by our pediatrician. I used to be a lobbyist for women and children's health rights so he thought it might interest me. I really liked it.

My mother was a biochemist specializing in genetic immunology. In the 80's she was very excited about the potential of recombinant dna being used in patients with genetic disorders. Unfortunately, the mortality rate in animal test subjects was 95%. Now the exciting potential is gene splicing to eliminate harmful genetic codes and substitute good ones before conception. She is retired now but still likes to dream....
Posted 5/12/2010 12:29 PM (GMT 0)
I just seen this on the morning news. I have mixed feelings about this honestly. I am not quite sure if this will be a benefit to society or not. I would be curious to do it myself just to see HOW messed up my gene's really are! lol But I guess I don't need a test to tell me what I already know.
Posted 5/12/2010 3:16 PM (GMT 0)
The problem I have with this is people not really understanding what the results mean. Like the aritcle pointed out, if a woman comes back with a low risk of breast cancer, based on her genetics, she may skip a mammogram. Well, that's NOT a good thing...you don't have to have one of the genetic risk factors to get breast cancer, and the test apparently doesn't cover all of them. Also, another woman might react the opposite way, and go into a frenzy if she does have a genetic risk factor for breast cancer. I do think women should have mammograms and the like, but living in fear isn't healthy!

I guess I'd be more ok with it if it came with an hour plus long session with a genetic counselor or something to fully discuss and explain the results. As it is now, there's just too much room for stuff like this to happen.
Posted 5/12/2010 5:50 PM (GMT 0)
Currently, the medical community is at odds with how often one should get a mammogram, because studies are showing that getting mammograms can increase the risk of getting breast cancer. Apparently, there is a gene, called oncogene AC, that is extremely sensitive to even small doses of radiation. By weighing the risk of getting breast cancer due to certain genes and the risk of getting breast cancer due to radiation, better decisions can be made on how often to get one. As of now, I have no idea how often I should get a mammogram, because the medical community is in such disagreement; so I will skip getting them. So far, I've had one.

http://www.naturalnews.com/010886_brst_cancer_mammograms.html
Posted 5/12/2010 8:55 PM (GMT 0)
I heard about it, too. What struck me is you pay $30 or something for the kit, but then you pay for the testing you choose separately, up to several hundred dollars per test. I wonder if getting it done through a doctor (can you?) would be the same cost (but FDA approved).

I think I could handle knowing the results of testing, but I think a lot of people could not.
Posted 5/12/2010 10:10 PM (GMT 0)
Once upon a time, early in my UC career, I worked for a few years as an HIV Counselor, giving the talk, calling in a phlebotomoist to take the blood, and then eventually giving test results... I also ran a support group for those who tested positive.
The whole mail-order testing question came up, and the dangers were the same: misinterpreting results, or results leading to dangerous behavior, or people not being able to deal with the test results on their own. Overall, I'd do this kind of testing under the supervision of my doctor, but not through Walgreen's.
Posted 5/12/2010 10:55 PM (GMT 0)
I agree that it ir reckless like someone mentioned in the article. I went to a genetics doctor for cancer info and I learned that even if you carry the gene it does not mean that you will get the cancer or disease. For instance, UC has found 3 genes that can cause it, however, not all people who have the gene are destined to get UC. It seems like it can really freak some people out for not reason at all. Wow, if I learned I had the breast cancer gene or colon cancer gene I would be freaking out. And besides the obvious ways to take care of your body, you cant prevent it from happening if it is going to. Bad idea...
✚ New Topic ✚ Reply