Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:No. But, the medical history was pretty grim. Both of us were in our 20s.
Between DH and I, family medical history had - hypertension, heart disease, stroke, diabetes, high cholesterol, arthritis, alcoholism, gout, various kinds of cancers, macular degeneration, cataracts, nerve damage, peripheral artery disease, blindness, dementia, personality disorders, anxiety, depression.
However not the things people are testing for! We’re talking about spina bifida, tay sachs, cystic fibrosis.
Anonymous wrote:I'm Ashkenazi and not having kids (I'm 50) -- can I still get a screening panel for insight into my own potential future health issues? If so, where (ie, not my OB)?
Anonymous wrote:No. But, the medical history was pretty grim. Both of us were in our 20s.
Between DH and I, family medical history had - hypertension, heart disease, stroke, diabetes, high cholesterol, arthritis, alcoholism, gout, various kinds of cancers, macular degeneration, cataracts, nerve damage, peripheral artery disease, blindness, dementia, personality disorders, anxiety, depression.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Before you do these kinds of tests, you should consider what you are actually going to do with the information.
If you and your spouse are both carriers of the same problematic recessive genes, are you going to not have children? Would you use a sperm donor?
If either of those things are out, what’s the point in doing the testing?
The major option being ignored here is IVF — if people can afford it that would generally be the path people take if they test positive for both parents.
To answer the question from OP, yes we did through our OB during the pre conception appointment. Had we tested positive we would have done IVF with embryo testing and moved forward with that vs conceiving naturally. Insurance did cover it, but we have Progyny vs normal insurance.
Following this to its logical conclusion, the ethical implications are catastrophic. It suggests that individuals in less than ideal health are somehow lesser human beings. As more people choose "designer babies," it will obviously lead to the conclusion that those who become disabled, old, or just sick are…what? encouraged to end their lives? This is a terrifying path.
We’re not talking about eye color here. This is about avoiding cystic fibrosis.
…quite literally the whole point. Are people with cystic fibrosis not supposed to be alive? You’re not deciding between “Johnny with cystic fibrosis or Johnny without cystic fibrosis”… you’re deciding whether Johnny should be alive, moron.
Anonymous wrote:We are both Jewish and did Natera and they messed it up. We asked a dozen times and provided a prescription for them to only test my husband for what I had, and they tested him for everything and did not even order the panel specifically for Ashkenazic Jews. As such, one of the things I carry he did not get tested for. Then they somehow uploaded his results to my profile and deleted mine (luckily I had mine saved).
It was a complete nightmare. In addition, during my required genetic screening meeting to discuss my results, the geneticist informed me that I was also at a higher risk of Parkinson’s based NOT on my ethnicity or family history but because I was a carrier of something. My grandmother has parkinson’s. So you can imagine how that made me feel—like yeah, I carry this disease associated with Jews and also associated with parkinson’s which is also associated with Jews. Connect the dots. I’ve gotten over it but it does make parkinson’s feel like an inevitability.
I was super pissed they informed me of that; I’d chosen to do Natera and not 23 and me or something similar explicitly to avoid being told that I was more likely to get xyz. This was ultimately the reason why my husband requested to only get screened for what I tested positive.
Anyways, I’m still pretty mad about it, three years later.