Slashdot Mirror
Should Patients Have the Option To Not Know Their DNA?
An anonymous reader writes "Genome sequencing is getting faster and cheaper every year. This article points out that in the not-too-distant future, a DNA test will be a common diagnostic tool for doctors. It's a good thing for figuring out what's wrong with you — but there will unintended consequences. The test will also return information about conditions and diseases you're likely to get, which will spur more frequent testing — which can be extremely uncomfortable and/or expensive — as well as more frequent worrying. Should people be able to opt-out of this knowledge? Even if they do, should the information go into the patient's medical record? It likely will, and then the next doctor may be in the difficult position of not knowing what she can discuss with the patient. A new decision from the American College of Medical Genetics has recommended giving patients the option of not having the information gathered at all. It can get more complicated, too: '[G]eneticists and bioethicists are already discussing scenarios where patients may approach such decisions more like a menu, saying they want to know about increased risk of heart disease but not cancer, for example.'"
I do not think there is a single law on the books that makes it illegal not to know something. All knowledge is op-out-able, as far as I am aware, no one is likely ever going to force you and everyone else to know something.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
It's like doing a blood test in the 17th century and asking if you'd like to opt out on your WBC count !!
As Genome Wide Association Studies begin to crack more of the genomic puzzle, there will be tighter and tighter direct correlation between medicine types & doses and the effectiveness of those drugs. As this efficacy increases, it is highly likely that the best insurance coverage will be based on genomic information.
Determining precise doses of a drug and which drug should be used is going to make for much better quality of medicine. I would expect that in a couple of decades people are going to look at the drug practices of today and laugh that we are pretty much throwing darts at the drug dartboard and choosing whatever it lands on.
Opting out of specific tests will be like not wanting X-Rays to see if a bone is broken.
If you know that you may be more likely to get cancer, then you can get tested more often and aggressively, increasing the chances that your cancer will be treatable.
I suppose on the other hand, if you worry so much thinking that you might get cancer you could die of a stress-induced heart attack or something.
Generally speaking though, forewarned is forearmed, and if the susceptible are more aggressively screened and treated, then it could well take away a lot of the "cancer is a death sentence" mentality that many people have.
I suppose it'll come down to personal decisions, but I sure wouldn't want to die of a condition that I was genetically predisposed toward, that was treatable and that I never got tested for because I was afraid the answer might be "yes".
Works ever time, right?
Parrot more cliches, and be sure to post your social security number, home address, mother's maiden name and date of birth here to Slashdot.
Security is an onion. Obscurity is a valid layer. Stop posting ignorant battlecries.
wasn't there a discovery that determined if you were likely to commit a crime? Or be serial killer or something like that?
How did that work out / what ever happened with it?
90% of murderers, and 99% of convicted rapists, have a copy of the SRY gene, which is much higher than its frequency in the general population (about 50%). SRY has been linked with aggressive behaviour, autism, and a preference for large, fast cars.