Genetically acquired disease is based on one's genetic makeup, environmental conditions, and chance. What would I, or anyone else for that matter, do with information that I have a 25% chance of getting a certain disease? I see fat people, smoking cigarettes, at the bar all the time...they are obviously ignoring the fact that they have at least a 25% chance of getting diabetes, lung cancer, or dying in a car crash. They don't seem to change their future behavior as a result. Why should we think that just because the probabilities are based on genetics, rather than their environment, that anything will change?
Pam - 8 years ago
Before the announcement I was looking at the possibility of using their service for myself and my son. I don't know my father’s health history. My son is adopted and although we are in contact with his birthmother, she was also adopted and doesn't know her parent’s health history. It might be nice to know.
Barbara - 8 years ago
I think the public availability of this information will be used as a detriment in the future, i.e. insurance rates go up, miss information being provided by targeting populations through google/facebook adds etc. not to mention the lack of professional interpretation resulting in self diagnosis which could result in personal hysteria. This has already been evidenced with the advertising of medications and patients demanding of their physicians they be given this new wonderful medication which may not be suitable for their situation. This should be done professionally where confidentiality is supported by both federal and state laws
MineoPie - 8 years ago
I voted 'highly likely' as my practical side sees the opportunity to plan appropriately whether that be treatment, an increase in health, life or long term care insurance or general peace of mind. There is also the potential to share these risks with my children for their own well-being. While I vacillate between this view & the one where I stick my fingers in my ears while yelling 'la la la I can't hear you' I ultimately see more benefit in having the data. Then I read the response from 'no name'. I certainly share the concern that any negative results will not be proprietary leading to increased insurance costs and general shunning. I'm reminded of the Monty Python & The Holy Grail scene ('I'm not dead yet, I think I'll go for a walk'). Perhaps I'm more on the fence that I realized.
If I or a family member was diagnosed with a catastrophic disease, I would explore the possibility of customized medications for the specific disease. I have heard stories of unusual and often benign medication combinations based on DNA sequencing resulting in astonishing outcomes.
The surface is just being scratched with customized medicine. As more DNA studies are performed and data is analyzed, I believe there will be more and more patient specific medicine. Hopefully this will eliminate some of the radical chemotherapy, radiation and surgical interventions.
mpw - 8 years ago
I utilized their service a few years ago when some members in my family were testing positive for the same genetic abnormality, and have had no regrets. One thing to remember if you're looking into this is that discovering a propensity for a trait does not mean it is an eventuality.
For example, I'm listed as likely lactose intolerant. However, my Wisconsin roots and love for almost all things dairy says otherwise.
No Name - 8 years ago
I wish I trusted my government and insurers more, but don't. I am now retired, but if I were still working, I don't think I'd trust any employer to not use this info to possibly discriminate against employees who might prove to be high risk. Yep, that's just the way it is.
hisjunkie - 8 years ago
If I had a family history of a nasty decease like Alzhiemers I definitely would.
Genetically acquired disease is based on one's genetic makeup, environmental conditions, and chance. What would I, or anyone else for that matter, do with information that I have a 25% chance of getting a certain disease? I see fat people, smoking cigarettes, at the bar all the time...they are obviously ignoring the fact that they have at least a 25% chance of getting diabetes, lung cancer, or dying in a car crash. They don't seem to change their future behavior as a result. Why should we think that just because the probabilities are based on genetics, rather than their environment, that anything will change?
Before the announcement I was looking at the possibility of using their service for myself and my son. I don't know my father’s health history. My son is adopted and although we are in contact with his birthmother, she was also adopted and doesn't know her parent’s health history. It might be nice to know.
I think the public availability of this information will be used as a detriment in the future, i.e. insurance rates go up, miss information being provided by targeting populations through google/facebook adds etc. not to mention the lack of professional interpretation resulting in self diagnosis which could result in personal hysteria. This has already been evidenced with the advertising of medications and patients demanding of their physicians they be given this new wonderful medication which may not be suitable for their situation. This should be done professionally where confidentiality is supported by both federal and state laws
I voted 'highly likely' as my practical side sees the opportunity to plan appropriately whether that be treatment, an increase in health, life or long term care insurance or general peace of mind. There is also the potential to share these risks with my children for their own well-being. While I vacillate between this view & the one where I stick my fingers in my ears while yelling 'la la la I can't hear you' I ultimately see more benefit in having the data. Then I read the response from 'no name'. I certainly share the concern that any negative results will not be proprietary leading to increased insurance costs and general shunning. I'm reminded of the Monty Python & The Holy Grail scene ('I'm not dead yet, I think I'll go for a walk'). Perhaps I'm more on the fence that I realized.
If I or a family member was diagnosed with a catastrophic disease, I would explore the possibility of customized medications for the specific disease. I have heard stories of unusual and often benign medication combinations based on DNA sequencing resulting in astonishing outcomes.
The surface is just being scratched with customized medicine. As more DNA studies are performed and data is analyzed, I believe there will be more and more patient specific medicine. Hopefully this will eliminate some of the radical chemotherapy, radiation and surgical interventions.
I utilized their service a few years ago when some members in my family were testing positive for the same genetic abnormality, and have had no regrets. One thing to remember if you're looking into this is that discovering a propensity for a trait does not mean it is an eventuality.
For example, I'm listed as likely lactose intolerant. However, my Wisconsin roots and love for almost all things dairy says otherwise.
I wish I trusted my government and insurers more, but don't. I am now retired, but if I were still working, I don't think I'd trust any employer to not use this info to possibly discriminate against employees who might prove to be high risk. Yep, that's just the way it is.
If I had a family history of a nasty decease like Alzhiemers I definitely would.