5 ms·

If I think I can interpret them correctly, I should be allowed to get the tests done, regardless of what the government thinks about it. Stick a disclaimer on t

by natrius 18y ago

If I think I can interpret them correctly, I should be allowed to get the tests done, regardless of what the government thinks about it. Stick a disclaimer on them if you must, but prohibiting the request of such tests by laypeople is fundamentally illiberal.

timr 18y ago
It's not just the interpretation that's important. Medical tests are carefully regulated and tested to ensure that they're accurate. These "tests" are not. In other words, this argument gets filed in the same bin as those that would suggest that FDA regulation of food and drugs is overbearing, and that we should all be allowed to eat whatever we want. It goes beyond personal choice; it's a matter of public health.
- jey 18y ago
  OK, so legislate the need for accuracy through licensing, etc -- I don't see how a doctor's order would make the test more accurate.
  - timr 18y ago
    Part of the problem is that these tests aren't for specific diseases, and really can't be made more accurate. Nobody knows what these genetic association studies mean on a clinical level. For example, if a woman is found to have a SNP marker that is associated with breast cancer, you might conclude that she shouldn't take birth control, since that raises the risk. But what if she also has a marker associated with ovarian cancer? Hormone therapy helps with that. What then? There are dozens of stories like this one, and even doctors are over their heads when it comes to this stuff. There's absolutely no chance that a layperson is going to be able to interpret the data of such a clinically dubious test. It may not be the best idea to enforce a doctor's order for these things, but there's a legitimate argument to be made, and it goes well beyond a simplistic interpretation of personal liberty. If enough people shell out for these scans, it's going to cause panic, over-medication and over-utilization of the medical system. Again, it's a question of public health. But don't take my word for it...here's a great editorial with some even better examples of the problems: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2004425391_geneticsop20.html http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2004425391_gen...
    - Zak 18y ago
      The tests for various SNP markers can be verified as accurate or not. The interpretation of the presence of a given marker may be up for debate, and these companies should not be making exaggerated claims about the ability of these tests to predict a person's risks for specific diseases. In short, if something should be regulated here, it's the claims these companies make about the value of the tests.
      - rms 18y ago
        They make little or no claim about the value of the tests. The argument against what they are doing is saying that offering any information about disease risk is an inherently medical topic.
    - dejb 18y ago
      Attitudes like yours are a large part of what is wrong with the world - 'People might makes mistakes so don't allow them to make decisions. In fact don't even allow them to have information because it might make them want to make decisions'. You'd fit in really well with the Roman Catholic orthodoxy in the time of the reformation - trying to forbid people from printing bibles.
      - Retric 18y ago
        The problem is not saying your DNA looks like this GTTAT... or you have version 27 of ___. The problem is saying you have X, Y, Z markers which increases your risk for A, B, and C which is a medical diagnosis. I don't have a problem if they give you all the data but linking DNA with risk not something individuals are capable of evaluating at this point in time.
        natrius 18y ago
        It's not a diagnosis. It's basically a search engine where the queries are DNA and the results are a summary of the academic literature related to specific sequences. If these tests should be outlawed, then so should any site that allows you to enter in symptoms to see what might be wrong with you.

by natrius 18y ago

timr 18y ago

It's not just the interpretation that's important. Medical tests are carefully regulated and tested to ensure that they're accurate. These "tests" are not. In other words, this argument gets filed in the same bin as those that would suggest that FDA regulation of food and drugs is overbearing, and that we should all be allowed to eat whatever we want. It goes beyond personal choice; it's a matter of public health.

jey 18y ago
OK, so legislate the need for accuracy through licensing, etc -- I don't see how a doctor's order would make the test more accurate.
- timr 18y ago
  Part of the problem is that these tests aren't for specific diseases, and really can't be made more accurate. Nobody knows what these genetic association studies mean on a clinical level. For example, if a woman is found to have a SNP marker that is associated with breast cancer, you might conclude that she shouldn't take birth control, since that raises the risk. But what if she also has a marker associated with ovarian cancer? Hormone therapy helps with that. What then? There are dozens of stories like this one, and even doctors are over their heads when it comes to this stuff. There's absolutely no chance that a layperson is going to be able to interpret the data of such a clinically dubious test. It may not be the best idea to enforce a doctor's order for these things, but there's a legitimate argument to be made, and it goes well beyond a simplistic interpretation of personal liberty. If enough people shell out for these scans, it's going to cause panic, over-medication and over-utilization of the medical system. Again, it's a question of public health. But don't take my word for it...here's a great editorial with some even better examples of the problems: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2004425391_geneticsop20.html http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2004425391_gen...
  - Zak 18y ago
    The tests for various SNP markers can be verified as accurate or not. The interpretation of the presence of a given marker may be up for debate, and these companies should not be making exaggerated claims about the ability of these tests to predict a person's risks for specific diseases. In short, if something should be regulated here, it's the claims these companies make about the value of the tests.
    - rms 18y ago
      They make little or no claim about the value of the tests. The argument against what they are doing is saying that offering any information about disease risk is an inherently medical topic.
  - dejb 18y ago
    Attitudes like yours are a large part of what is wrong with the world - 'People might makes mistakes so don't allow them to make decisions. In fact don't even allow them to have information because it might make them want to make decisions'. You'd fit in really well with the Roman Catholic orthodoxy in the time of the reformation - trying to forbid people from printing bibles.
    - Retric 18y ago
      The problem is not saying your DNA looks like this GTTAT... or you have version 27 of ___. The problem is saying you have X, Y, Z markers which increases your risk for A, B, and C which is a medical diagnosis. I don't have a problem if they give you all the data but linking DNA with risk not something individuals are capable of evaluating at this point in time.
      - natrius 18y ago
        It's not a diagnosis. It's basically a search engine where the queries are DNA and the results are a summary of the academic literature related to specific sequences. If these tests should be outlawed, then so should any site that allows you to enter in symptoms to see what might be wrong with you.