Personally, I wouldn’t, unless I thought it was going to make some sort of meaningful difference in terms of how I conducted myself or helped me decide about a range of medical options. For example, if cancer with a particular genetic component responds particularly well (or particularly poorly) to a certain type of treatment, I’d consider getting tested as part of my treatment decisions.

I would also distinguish between genetic tests which give you risk factors as opposed to a diagnosis. The BRCA genes definitely raise the likelihood of a diagnosis*, but it’s not the sort of certainty you see with, for example, Huntington’s. I think I’d also approach the situation differently if, for example, my husband and I were both carriers of something like Tay Sachs. However, even allowing for all of those scenarios, I still don’t think I would. (And it’s quite the privilege to be able to speculate.)

*It’s worth pointing out that while BRCA genes are usually talked about in terms of breast cancer, those with the gene also have an elevated risk of other types of cancer, especially ovarian.

Thankfully my mother’s still in the clear, but we’ve all refused testing because while it would be interesting to know, we’re pretty sure that there are uninformed, unscrupulous people out there who would use the information against us. Personally, in the current health and political climate, the ONLY time I would seek genetic testing would be for preventable conditions. As of yet, there’s no 100% surefire way to prevent hereditary cancers, so why worry even more about the situation–the presence of the gene still doesn’t guarantee cancer development, and family history has already given a headsup–if you can’t keep it from happening? I think the best you can do is be diligent about your screenings in order to catch it early.

Of course, I should probably practice what I preach; I’m pushing 28, so I should find out if my insurance will help with screenings even though I’m under 30.

That said, the Sydney Morning Herald had a couple of articles about DNA testing here in Australia, where the situation is slightly different, and citizens are not solely reliant on employer provided and/or self funded health insurance for health care. Some of the issues MM and baraqiel, plus other harpies have raised are mentioned in the articles.

What is most interesting is that once you have a DNA test, you maybe required to disclose those results.

http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/lifematters/you-bet-your-life-health-insurers-cheap-dna-test-could-prove-costly-20100214-nzkq.html
AND
http://www.smh.com.au/news/business/money/the-dna-of-life-insurance/2010/03/02/1267291861874.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1

Perhaps this is something that happens more when you’re buying insurance for yourself or you’re older, but I have never been asked for any sort of medical record by an employer nor by my new insurance company. I’m wondering if this really follows people around as much as we worry it does. Then again, I’m healthy (so far as I know) so I, personally, would have no compelling reason to make sure my medical record moved on.

I have a whole host of nasty family history that I’m a little sad I’ve probably passed on to my kids. Likewise, my stepfamily has a horrible medical history which, (in some ways luckily) includes fertility issues. Of my big group of cousins, only two of them are genetically related to my grandmother, whose family has the heart problems, cancer, and sugar issues. When my father was dying, he confessed that he was glad my sister and I couldn’t inherit his heart defect. He was my father in every way that mattered, and sometimes I’ve regretted having that extra (obnoxious) dad out there, but I’m just as glad to have skipped the heart defect too, and I’m eternally grateful that, when it was killing him, he was free of worrying about it hurting us too.