Re: DNA of relative indicts man, cuckolding ignored
At 08:25 AM 7/7/03 -0400, Stormwalker wrote:
The issue of knowing about other people based on one subject's DNA has been known for for several years. For example, if a a woman has the BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene (breast cancer), then so does her mother, sister(s) and daughter(s) because the gene is hereditary. Insurance companies can/have refused insurance coverage to the subject's relatives and the relatives have no idea why.
Interesting, thanks. Even a brother's daughter could be refused.
Ethical issues have surfaced around the desire of the subject's relatives not wanting to know if they have a harmful, shared gene. If the subject tells her relatives abour her gene, then her relatives know
that they have the gene. It's not like I told some them I broke my arm which only tells them a fact about me.
Perhaps this is the basis for the social stigma of mentally ill relatives --it says something (probabilistic) about the speaker. Still, you'll find out when they end up in the hospital. Its useful knowledge to know your genes ---I know adopted people who regret not having any clue. I know that my prostate will explode when I get older. I'd like to know more. Sticking your head in the sand is rarely helpful.
In my opinion, very few people understand the impact of human understanding of how life is constructed. The science is well understood, the engineering has just begun. We are taking conscious control of evolution, far past selective breeding and way past clones.
Most descendants of germ-cell-fixed diabetes (etc) will probably not regret the tinkering of their ancestors, unless there are unintended side effects :-) But yeah, interesting times we live in. I've never heard anyone curse their ancestors for the genetic diseases they've inherited, probably because they wouldn't exist except for the ancestors. ("Damn, grandpa, couldn't you have married someone in better health?") Also little good cursing would do. Insurance companies are private entities, so IMHO its moral for them to gather intel (eg, checking blood for nicotine metabolites), or give discounts for folks who've had certain inherited diseases fixed in the future. Or eat better, drive safer, exchange fluids less promiscuously, whatever. I'm more worried about the State, which coerces with violence.
On Mon, 7 Jul 2003, Major Variola (ret) wrote:
Interesting, thanks. Even a brother's daughter could be refused.
The BRCA genes are only transmitted through the mother, but there are many others that go through both lines.
Ethical issues have surfaced around the desire of the subject's Perhaps this is the basis for the social stigma of mentally ill relatives --it says something (probabilistic) about the speaker.
With most genes there is not a 100% chance that any one person will suffer, although there are few. One measurement is the PPV, Positive Predictive Value, which gets to estimate the probability that the problem gene will actually cause the problem. Trouble is, it's real hard to get the PPV right. No one really knows how to do it, so the insurance companies just say to any possibility, no matter how remote.
Still, you'll find out when they end up in the hospital. Its useful knowledge to know your genes ---I know adopted people who regret not having any clue. I know that my prostate will explode when I get older. I'd like to know more. Sticking your head in the sand is rarely helpful.
While I agree completely, you might be surprised at just how many people don't want to know and will get upset if you spoil the surprise by telling them.
In my opinion, very few people understand the impact of human understanding of how life is constructed. The science is well understood, the engineering has just begun. We are taking conscious control of evolution, far past selective breeding and way past clones.
Most descendants of germ-cell-fixed diabetes (etc) will probably not regret the tinkering of their ancestors, unless there are unintended side effects :-)
Unintended side effects are all but guaranteed :( The tinkering will resemble eugenics at the building block level. Eliminating genetic diseases will be great, but introducing other things might not be, just as eliminating some things might be bad.
But yeah, interesting times we live in. I've never heard anyone curse their ancestors for the genetic diseases they've inherited, probably because they wouldn't exist except for the ancestors. ("Damn, grandpa, couldn't you have married someone in better health?") Also little good cursing would do.
This already happens - selecting your mate has more procedures if youare in line for a spot as king somewhere.
Insurance companies are private entities, so IMHO its moral for them to gather intel (eg, checking blood for nicotine metabolites), or give discounts for folks who've had certain inherited diseases fixed in the future. Or eat better, drive safer, exchange fluids less promiscuously, whatever.
I have to disagree here. Medical insurance is not the same as life or car insurance. It was all supposed to be a big pool that we would draw on when needed. By skimmimng the cream, infant mortality rates rise, along with a host of other problems.
I'm more worried about the State, which coerces with violence.
Well, yes, but the corporations are becoming part of their own state... cheers, bob
participants (2)
-
Major Variola (ret) -
Stormwalker