Public Health (cont.)

To continue with the question I posed yesterday, I'm going to throw in a real thought provoker.

Most, if not all, have heard of the potential for genetic testing for certain cancers or diseases (like breast cancer) that may be genetically inherited.  Knowing that even though a positive test result does not mean that the individual will actually develop the cancer or disease, only that they are predisposed.

With that in mind, can or should insurance companies be allowed to 1) have that information and 2) if they do have access to the information, should they be allowed to underwrite their premiums on that information?  Keep in mind that the individual may or may not be able to control what happens to them in the future.  But, with the knowledge that they are predisposed to the condition, can either take precautionary measures or hope it doesn't develop.

Now, say you have had the testing and found out that you are predisposed to a particular cancer.  For example, as a woman with a history of ovarian and breast cancer in my family I decide to have the testing and found out that I also have the genes that scribe for breast cancer.  There is no guarantee that I will develop breast cancer, just that my chances are high.  I have the option of preventing the occurrence by having both breasts removed.  Now, put yourself in my shoes and ask yourself if you might do something similar.  Would you test or take your chances?  What if your insurance company insisted on the testing?

BTW, the example is just that, while there is history of both in my family I am not getting myself tested, nor have I considered it.

Keep on Go!