Article Source: msnbc.com
from:msnbc.comYou're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
Scientists turn skin cells into beating heart muscle1 in 3 developmentally delayed babies untreatedFake drugs impede progress made in war on malariaAbstinence-only sex ed defies common senseSigmoidoscopy an option for colon cancer screeningDunkin Donuts going zero grams trans fat Bagged lettuce recall expands across nationBorn to run barefoot? Some end up getting injuredGet the body you want without paying the priceSeafood benefits outweigh mercury risks
Leave a Comment:
Once you released have your DNA to this company , do the rights revert to the company? Does that extend to the company having the right to sell this information to other companies or agencies for other uses. I would hope people have more sense then to fall for this.
Right on the money with that part. How often do we hear of a study that says eating X "may help reduce your cancer risk" that soon gets twisted into "X cures cancer!"?
Although, there is another side of me that says that if some clueless idiots want to throw away their money getting rubbish for test results...
Oh wow, so many groups and panels say this isn't a good thing either! It makes me want to go out and buy one today. So far, all these ivory tower groups and panels have been dead wrong on their assumptions and findings. (The only thing really stopping me right now is that I'm going on vacation, and I need the bucks for travel. Maybe when I get back I'll give it a shot [or spit, as the case may be]). On the other hand, I'm sort of old, but I'm healthy as a horse. I suppose if I was going to have anything that's being tested for, it would have shown up by now. Oh well, maybe I will wait for the price to go down.
Does it invade one privacy? Since You are releasing the info to a 3rd party the answer is no, if that 3rd party releases that info without Your consent, it opens the door for a law suit.
At my present age, I see no need for such a test (over 60) but maybe younger people might want to know what lies ahead for them and a tool to combat it before it goes critical.
Would it scare the crap out of some people now maybe knowly what lies ahead? Yes, and that could lead to many other problems, but yet at the same time it just might give one a heads up and begin the fight for what disease that might be in their future.
Its like a crap game, only play if you dare.
Just what we need, a nation of paranoid people trying to control their futures. Oh yeah...this ought to be interesting. Will those who have a propensity to diabetes be allowed to marry those who have a propensity to cancer? Watch abortion rise now. All it will take is for herds of Americans to discover 12 generations back the origin of Alzheimer's or Huntington's. In a way, it's amusing. Now, the issue in elections won't be abortion but DNA.
This is it folks. Futureworld where you have to know everything that hasn't happened so you can control the planet, everyone on it and yourself least of all.
These DNA tests have been available to the public for several years from another company, for about the same price. So why the uproar now?
I personally am very familiar with my ancestry and their causes of death, major illnesses, etc., and I feel I know the probablilty of contracting some of their illnesses. However, I am 100% for these tests to be available. I've been considering a full test for quite some time.
I have used DNA testing to confirm ancestry.
Since the individual pays for his own analysis, I really don't see the problem. I'd be careful, though, about release to companies other than the testing company. Insurance companies are well known to NOT cover individuals for many reasons. This would give them another avenue to not insure everyone.
MCM,
You are, of course, correct.
But what would you do about the flip side of the problem? Suppose a person knows that he has a gene that will cause him to die young. Should he be allowed to buy life insurance without disclosing it? Seems unfair to me...
Economan says: "Suppose a person knows that he has a gene that will cause him to die young. Should he be allowed to buy life insurance without disclosing it? Seems unfair to me..."
Please note sir that there is a big difference between possessing a gene in one's genome and that gene being expressed. ("Expressed" in genetic terms means becoming active.) There is a huge difference betwen a gene that has been been identified as giving a higher HYPOTHETICAL possibility of developing an illness and a gene that with gives rise to an illness with CERTAINTY. Note the difference well.
It is a statistical certainty that there have been people who have lived to a ripe old age while possessed of genes that supposedly could give rise to an illness. There are probably also those who have died from an accident before a gene that might have given them a deadly illness ever had a chance to express itself. Should they have been denied insurance? Would that be fair?
And where exactly should we draw the line here? Should we all pursue life on the basis of yet incomplete genetic science and research that fatalistically determines of what we are all capable before we have had a chance to prove ourselves? Would you analyze someone's genome and then deny them a driver's license because they have a gene that MIGHT make them prone to an epileptic seizure? After all, it would be unfair to other drivers and pedestrians to have someone in charge of a car who MIGHT have a seizure. Would you deny someone an opportunity at higher education because their genes reveal that they MIGHT be prone to ADD and thus MIGHT be unable to concentrate well enough to pass their courses? After all, it would be unfair to give a place in an educational institution if they are going to fail anyway, when another person with a greater chance of success might lose that place. Would you deny someone a job as a carpenter because their genes show they MIGHT develop multiple sclerosis and be unable to perform their work within a decade? After all, it would be unfair for a person with no genes for MS to lose a job that they could be expected to perform until retirement. Are any of the above scenarios unfair?
To decide in advance what a person's fate will be on the basis of their genes seems to me to be a sort of pseudo-scientific witchcraft that would lead to a very frightening "Brave New World".
Jherek,
I agree with your points about uncertainty, etc. But it is also computable that people with certain genes have a shorter life expectancy than others. (I'm not competent to discuss specific cases, but surely you agree with my general point.)
Insurance companies (and their actuaries) have to make use of that information or else they can be bankrupted by those who possess information that they can't use. Furthermore, they already make computations along those lines. For example, smokers pay higher life insurance premiums than non-smokers.
We're not there yet, but surely the day is coming when people will be able to have their DNA analyzed and some of them will discover that they have a significantly shorter than average life expectancy. My question remains: should they be allowed to buy life insurance without disclosing that information?
If your answer is "No", then what would you do when such people disclose that info to investors who would lend them huge amounts of money in return for being named beneficiary on their insurance policies? (That's actually illegal in most states, but clever people could find a way around it.)
P.S., Your mention of "Brave New World" is apropos, but genetic testing can make that sort of environment possible, if we like it or not.
Economan, at the risk of sounding tedious I will re-iterate my main point: Please note sir that there is a big difference between possessing a gene in one's genome and that gene being expressed. ("Expressed" in genetic terms means becoming active.) There is a huge difference betwen a gene that has been been identified as giving a higher HYPOTHETICAL possibility of developing an illness and a gene that with gives rise to an illness with CERTAINTY. Note the difference well.
As far as insurance companies making use of our genetic information goes, they have managed to earn handsome profits year after year for centuries by working with statistics as their main tool. I don't really think they need to peek at our genes in order to protect their interests.
As for going bankrupt,... well, head to the downtown core of any major Western city and look at the tops of the largest buildings. You will discover that most of them are owned by insurance companies and banks. Again, insurance companies manage to make handsome profits without having our genetic information in their greedy little hands.
The day that our lives are evaluated on the basis of our genes may indeed come but in my estimation it will be a sad day indeed and I will not welcome it.
Jherek,
I understand your point about "expresssed", etc., and agree with your point. But there is also an undeniable statistical correlation between having certain genes and dying young. Any mathematician worth the title could find ways to game the insurance companies for huge "return on investment".
I agree about the buildings owned by insurance companies. I don't have any particular sympathy for them, but I do have a sentimental interest in fundamental fairness. Ask yourself this: If insurance companies could accept or reject applicants based upon their genetic profile, would you be in favor or opposed? OK, now look at the flip side. If customers could apply based upon their genetic make-up (and the insurance companies would have to insure them regardless), how is that more or less fair than allowing the insurance companies to game the system?
As for the insurance companies' handsome profits, I believe that the health insurers make around 3% of premiums in profits - not a big margin, even though it represents billions of dollars. Game them for a few percent and suddenly they're losers and eventually can't pay their claims. What good is that?
I don't know what the profit margins are for the life insurers, but I would guess that it's a similar situation. If not, anyone could enter the business and run the pigs out. That's the free market at its best.
I agree to a large extent, but I don't see what can be done to stop it.
P.S., It's always a pleasure to read well-reasoned posts.
I'm imagining a new question on health and life insurance applications: "Have you had DNA testing for any of the following genes? If yes, please provide the results."
This will be a huge problem for insurance companies and customers alike.
The Insurance Companys surely will use this information against you! Just look at what they are doing now....Denying benefits to any one who has had a prior heart issue, or cancer...They only want to insure healthy people so they can line the pockets of the Boards and CEO's for years of come without really spending any money on sick people and then when you get sick, they drop you...
and Your Congress has approved this!! And you Voted for them.....Suckers....
Thats why we PASSED Health Care reform, they can't drop you anymore!!!!!!
HealthCare reform has nothing to do with Life Insurance Companies, which may refuse you if you have the test done, or even raise your premiums substantially.
I don't think the insurance companies can be profitable if they exclude everyone with genetic issues that MIGHT cause problems down the road. Fortunately, there are laws on the books which forbid them to even ask questions about genetic tests. Whether or not you will get abuse of information is key.
These days it's jail time for people who hack into your email (Palin), but my Mom got conned out of 70K and the police said it was a civil issue, not criminal. Go figure.
jennyct...The reality is that insurance companies don't want to insure anyone over the age of 40. After that life insurance premiums start to increase proportionately to your increase in age. Health insurance companies for certain do no want to insure anyone over the age of 40. They made pregnancy and delivery bare bones and some major surgical procedures drive by. If not for profit reasons, why else?
I guess what I was trying to say is that a large proportion of the population has a genetic predisposition for something, whether it be diabetes, heart disease, cancer, etc... In fact 1 in 3 will get cancer. If the insurance companies only insure the "flawless," the pool of applicants would be mighty small, and they still will have major accidents, etc which will require hospitalization, rehab, etc. So you see, they do make a profit off of people who might get something. Remember that although genes play a role, there is an environmental factor that acts as a catalyst. It is well known that we are bombarded by carcinogens and work stress... factors which insurance companies should be helping to improve.
If someone believes they are predisposed to a certain disease and finds out that "yes" you are extremely likely to get that disease then I suppose it is a useful tool but ONLY if that person can do something to keep the disease at bay (lose weight, eat right, exercise, take a certain medication etc) otherwise who wants to know what they might die of in 50 years? Every last one of us does not make it out alive. We all have to go from something. Why worry ahead of time. Live life that's why we're here.
Do I think insurance companies might use the info against us. Very possibly.
I say...don't buy the test unless you truly think you will change your habits.
Cindy, AustinTX...The greater danger is the day you register your child for pre-school. Count on it, the poor kid will be compartmentalized at the age of 2 into those with genetic predispositions and those without. Isn't it enough that children as young as 2 are labeled "difficult to manage" and have to be farmed into "special needs" classes? Whatever happened to adults who understood normal childhood Terrible Twos? By the time these kids start kindergarten, they've already been tested until their little brains are exhausted. Schools these days find any reason to avoid having to deal with normal childhood behavior. So, they get rid of them by "special edding" them into classes that mark them for life.
I can go to a palm reader and pay for all kinds of life guidance, invest or eat the foods suggested and pay a hansom price for advanced knowledge of the movements of the stars. Also waiting is countless churches that preach anything under the sun and investment companys on every corner to help the helpless cast there bets. So what could go wrong with ones opening the DNA box?
whiteyward...Since the advent of HMOs, what goes wrong is how many lab workers are overworked which results in higher percentage of testing errors. That's what goes wrong now. With DNA testing? The mind boggles.
Probably about as reliable as calling the astrological hot line!
I believe, while there are some serious consequences to the tests, there may also be some valuable information. If you lok at the companies website, some of the tests check for medicine issues, and may tell you if some medications should be avoided. This could be important information. But, buyer beware. I could see problems where the tests say a person may be prone to obesity, giving a person an excuse to be overweight and an excuse to stop trynig to fight off the extra pounds. This would go for any condition that people may just say, oh well, my genes show that I will have a heart attack early, so why bother living healthy...
Ippster...Right. So when a kid starts school, they can figure out if he or she is athletically inclined and medically healthy enough to take part in school sports? Overeducated loonies will make good use of these over-the counter tests, count on it. Classification will be the norm in schools like never before.
the only one deciding to buy this stupid crock of crap is you. i personally think it's just another under handed way to get into more of your personal information.
hell why not?with all the other info they have on you why not just a little bit more!first of all who says this garbage is accurate to begin with?do you actually know, because they say so!
hey if people want to expose themselves to this information fest, then by all means knock yourselves out.as for me i prefer to just leave it alone. if it ain't broke don't try to fix it.
sometimes socalled modern technology is best left on a shelf. remember you don't know if this is fool proof. nothing is perfect i don't care what the hell it is.believe what you want after all it's your choice!.
In my case, my sister was diagnosed with breast cancer at the age of 30 my mother 7 years later. I tried to go about testing for the gene through my MD, but guess what, my insurance won't cover genetic testing, they told me however if I get cancer they will cover 80% of my treatment. Now, it doesn't take a brick to hit me in the head, I have had mammograms since I was 28 and do a SBE each and every month and have a manual exam 6 months after my mammo so I'm doing all the right things, but still I think I'd like to know if I have the gene...I'll have to seriously think about buying this kit...but that's just my life, every one has to make their own choice....
wiscLPN,
First of all, I wish you well with your health issues and don't mean to pick on you (or anyone else) personally, but I couldn't help but notice:
What strikes me as really interesting is the general attitude that if insurance doesn't pay for something, that there is some reason that the individual shouldn't or can't buy it himself. How did we (our country) get this way?
Please be well and good luck.
Economan-I understand what you're saying, and it's not that I CAN'T pay for it myself, (although it's a very expensive test) however, being the medical field there are alot of insurances that will cover genetic testing, mine just doesn't not, it's self funded and therefore can set their payouts. I just think that I pay my premiums on time so why don't they cover things that I am obviously at risk for....it's not a fly by night request just because I think it would be cool to have done..
Not to mention what your company may do with the information, and don't begin to think under the new electronic medical records data centralized system someone isn't going to know. They already look at them now. By the way how will some of these health diagnostics affect your car insurance your credit score and your home owners policy, when a DNA test supposedly shows your sickly and your life expectancy won't out live your next car loan.
The medical industry on its best days is patronizing. This is simply another example in a long line of 'tut-tut's' it issues. Medical education in this country is non-existent in the K-12 schools, treated as if it were holy knowledge. Patient education is no different, doctors and nurses unable to employ metaphor and allegory to aid patient understanding of procedures and disease process. One study showed slightly over half of patients being hospital discharged could not name their primary diagnosis. As an RN I find that entirely believable.
So, test away. Medical privacy is a myth. Credit reports contain information that is decipharable. Pharmacies share Rx info that is accessible by law enforcement and other pharmacies. Accident victims often have their entire medical history included in investigative agency reports. Many employers, notoriously hospitals and clinics, research medical backgrounds under the guise of 'relevance to the position', using the canard that 'irrelevant information' will not be considered. To even be considered for most jobs you are required to sign a waiver, a false choice between employment and privacy. Then there is drug testing. More than a few companies have tested beyond what they claim to test for.
When you have the information you're too ignorant to be trusted with it. When someone else has it it's a legitimate business concern.
"patient education is no different, doctors and nurses unable to employ metaphor and allegory to aid patient understanding of procedures and disease process. One study showed slightly over half of patients being hospital discharged could not name their primary diagnosis."
I find this very hard to understand as well....as far as the rest of your statement...it couldn't be more true!!
Insurance companies certainly welcome this. They can refuse to honor a policy or cover you if you are aware of any condition and do not report it when getting a policy. This is one area where the health reform bill makes a huge difference, since they will have to cover pre-existing conditions. For certain, they already include results of medical tests.
G.I. Joe says Knowing is half the battle... The other half is having the money.
I am deeply suspicious of any positions that argue for ignorance.
If I would be protected from anything on this green earth, it would be from those who want to protect me...
Of course, stupid people may do stupid things when provided with knowledge. For that matter, they're pretty good at doing stupid things whilst still ignorant.
very cool!i tend to agree!
If I had used this genetic testing when I got married 62 years ago, I would NEVER have had a child. How sad for me, tho. I have a son, two grandchildren, and a great granddaughter. Medical progress has given me a kidney transplant as well as my son, who inherited my kidney disease. I think if one fools with Mother Nature as this genetic testing will be doing, one may be sorry.
It's your money folks but this latest testing kit is just a scam set up by grifters posing as scientists.
A bunch of suits sat in their office at this company one day and said...
"We need more sales to make all this fancy equipment pay, we can't rely on Jerry Springer and Maury Povich to beat the drum . Lets just throw a sample kit out on the shelves, tell people it's a window their future and they will be worse off without it. They won't question who we are, how reputable or how or how accurate we are...this is a gold mine gentlemen. Let's do it"
Reality is....Consult the Ouija board, it's far more accurate.
I work in a genetics lab and these tests (according to CLIA '88) require a doctor to be involved as well as a genetic counselor.. How are they managing that aspect of testing?