The Cancer Gene
@purplealabaster (22091)
United States
March 5, 2012 9:45am CST
They have genetic testing now that will determine whether or not you have a gene that has been linked to cancer. Given the number of family members that had/have died from cancer not to mention the specific types of cancer they had, the doctors feel that I should take this test to determine whether or not I carry this gene.
After doing a little research, however, I have decided not to take the test, even though I suspect that I probably do carry the gene. The thing is that if you carry the gene, it does not necessarily mean that you will get cancer, although you are definitely at a higher risk for it than someone that does not carry the gene. Similarly, if you do not carry the gene, there is no guarantee that you will not get cancer, especially if there is a history of cancer in your family. Of course, if you have a family history of cancer combined with the fact that you carry the gene, then you are at a significantly higher risk for the disease than someone that just carries the gene or just has a history of cancer in the family but does not carry the gene. Therefore, I feel that it would make me worry a lot more to find out that I definitely carry the gene, and it really does not change anything else, because it will not tell me definitively whether or not I will have the disease.
So, would you take the test to determine whether or not you have the gene? Have you already taken the test and gotten the results? Does knowing make you feel any better or worse than not knowing?
11 people like this
23 responses
@topffer (42156)
• France
5 Mar 12
Not sure, but I think I would take it : it would be reassuring to know that I don't carry the gene, even if it does not mean that I will not get a cancer. And if I carry this gene, I will do more often tests to detect a cancer than if I don't carry it. But maybe are you right, and doing this genetic testing is useless.
4 people like this
@purplealabaster (22091)
• United States
6 Mar 12
I agree that finding out that I did not carry the cancer gene would set my mind at ease a little more. However, I already know that I am at a higher risk for cancer than the general population, even without the gene, so I guess that it does not really matter, especially since I already have to have tests done more often due to the family history. Still, knowing that I did not carry the gene would be a point in my favor. On the other hand, what is going to happen will happen regardless of whether or not I carry the gene, so I guess that I will just try not to worry about it.
2 people like this
@purplealabaster (22091)
• United States
28 Nov 15
@vandana7 LOL - my dear Vandy, only you could make me laugh at something so serious as hoping to die from dengue fever from a mosquito versus cancer!
@Glitznglitter (389)
• Canada
5 Mar 12
Since I am a worrier I would rather not know as then I every little ache I would wonder if it was cancer pain, and I would panic and want more tests each time something healthwise happened to me.
Now if they can test for the gene and do something to remove it prior to getting the cancer I would definately want the test to see if I have any of the cancer genes that they could cure or remove prior to getting the disease.
@purplealabaster (22091)
• United States
5 Mar 12
I agree with you on this. I think that I would definitely worry more, and that could lead to other health issues, even if I never got cancer. If there was something that they could do to prevent the cancer once they found the gene, however, then I think I would have the test.
I am glad that I did the research before submitting to the test, though. The way the doctor presented it, I thought that there was something that they could actually do if they found that I carried the gene. The only thing they will do is watch me more carefully, which they will do anyway given my family history, so the test really is not going to have any positive benefits, in my opinion.
Here is another scenario. What if they could isolate and remove the part of the gene that is linked with cancer, but there were significant health risks associated with the procedure? Would you still have them remove it knowing the serious health risks and given the fact that just carrying the gene does not guarantee that you will get cancer?
2 people like this
@owlwings (43910)
• Cambridge, England
5 Mar 12
Cancer is not one disease but many. There is certainly evidence that some types of cancer have a genetic component which makes it more likely that some people will contract a certain kind of cancer.
If there is a history of a particular cancer in your family, it MAY be useful to know whether you carry the gene or not because you (and your doctor) will then know to check regularly for any signs of that particular disease.
It is absolutely true that, the earlier any signs of cancer are detected, the more likely it is that it can be completely cured.
What I do not like about the information that genetic testing can supply is the fact that insurance companies may base the level of their premiums on it. I believe that the time has not yet arrived when insurance companies (and employers) can require genetic testing but, if you do have tests done, you may be prejudicing the terms of your insurance if you don't let them know. It is almost certain that they would want to revise your premiums, at the very least, based on that information!
2 people like this
@purplealabaster (22091)
• United States
5 Mar 12
Of course you are right that there are many different types of cancer, and each type has a different typical progression path and rate, different treatment options, different success rates and different causes (environmental, hereditary and lifestyle). This is why there is no guarantee that just because you do not carry the gene you will not get cancer, because not all cancers have a genetic component, and even when they do there are other factors that can affect whether or not you actually get cancer.
You are also correct that with many cancers the earlier the detection the better the rate of "curing" or sending it into remission. However, there are some that have an extremely low survival rate, even when they are detected in their earliest stages.
You have an excellent point about the insurance, though. There is a difference between having the gene associated with certain cancers and actually having the cancer. However, I suspect that you are right - insurance would want to raise premiums at best or at worst refuse insurance, even though there is still a good chance that I will never have the disease.
You have an excellent point about the insurance, though. There is a difference between having the gene associated with certain cancers and actually having the cancer. However, I suspect that you are right - insurance would want to raise premiums at best or at worst refuse insurance, even though there is still a good chance that I will never have the disease.1 person likes this
@smacksman (6053)
•
5 Mar 12
It is a bit of a no brainer to test genetically for cancer in your case when you say that there is a history of cancer in your family. Surely the history is telling you that already?
As said above, the clever thing to do would be to have regular checks to pick up the cancer early. If you can catch it early enough the success rate for the treatment is now very high.
Once you know that you have the cancer gene the hard thing would be to decide if you would have children as you would know that you would be passing it on to them. Tough one.
3 people like this
@purplealabaster (22091)
• United States
5 Mar 12
Why is it a "no brainer" for me to have the test?
What is it really going to tell me, and what benefits will it have?
Early detection is very important, although the success rate is not so high for certain kinds of cancers, even when they are detected in their earliest stages. I do agree, though, that regular check-ups and early detection if I do happen to get cancer are my best chances at living a long and (hopefully) healthy life.
I already have children, but I think that I would still have another one, even if I knew that I carried the gene, although I cannot say that for sure. First, it is not guaranteed that you will pass the gene on to your children. Second, carrying the gene does not guarantee that you will get cancer nor does not carrying the gene guarantee that you will not get cancer. Third, there is a history of cancer in the family and that it is very scary, but there are also a lot of people in the family that never got cancer (and we do not know whether or not they carried the gene), so I do not see how it would change anything.
What is it really going to tell me, and what benefits will it have?
Early detection is very important, although the success rate is not so high for certain kinds of cancers, even when they are detected in their earliest stages. I do agree, though, that regular check-ups and early detection if I do happen to get cancer are my best chances at living a long and (hopefully) healthy life.
I already have children, but I think that I would still have another one, even if I knew that I carried the gene, although I cannot say that for sure. First, it is not guaranteed that you will pass the gene on to your children. Second, carrying the gene does not guarantee that you will get cancer nor does not carrying the gene guarantee that you will not get cancer. Third, there is a history of cancer in the family and that it is very scary, but there are also a lot of people in the family that never got cancer (and we do not know whether or not they carried the gene), so I do not see how it would change anything.1 person likes this
@smacksman (6053)
•
5 Mar 12
Well I think you are absolutly right.
By 'no brainer' I meant exactly what you said. You have a gene test and it may or may not prove positive. Even if it does, and with your history it may well do, all it does is tell you what you already know. Maybe you'll get cancer - maybe not. So what have you gained? Can the test cure anything - no.
Sounds to me like a good opportunity for the medics to make a bit of money!
2 people like this
@smacksman (6053)
•
5 Mar 12
Absolutely! The last thing insurance companies want is people to be sick!
1 person likes this
@JenInTN (27514)
• United States
6 Mar 12
I don't think I would take the test either. I mean..it's not going to change anything either way right? Are they saying there is something they can do if you do carry the gene or is it just that you are carrying the gene that is the whole point? I know there are certain genetic tests that you can see ratios of passing on certain debilitating illnesses on to children...there are people that do this to see if they want to chance reproduction but I can't see a lot of use for just knowing that gene for cancer is there. If someone is at high risk because of family history, they are supposed to do tests periodically anyway.
I don't know if it would make me worry more but it wouldn't be useful to me. I think that sometimes tests just boil down to extra charges. Especially one that doesn't come with a treatment.
3 people like this
@GardenGerty (160949)
• United States
7 Mar 12
If we had known that my first husband had a familial form of ALS we might have not had children how ever, until Larry had ALS we did not know it was familial. The neurologist said personally he would not have the kids tested, as they have a fifty percent chance of developing the disease, but people who do not have the genes cannot say that they have a fifty percent chance of not developing a sporadic version of the disease.
2 people like this
@purplealabaster (22091)
• United States
8 Mar 12
JenInTN - I agree with you. If the test were going to determine something useful, such as your example of passing down a debilitating illness to our children, then I could see taking it, especially if both parents needed to be carriers of the gene for the children to develop the illness. However, if there is nothing good that could come from the test, then I do not see the point in taking it.
GG - I agree that I would not have the children tested, either. I suspect that you know very well the signs to look for, and if at some point there is cause to be concerned, then that is a different story. I believe it is the same with the cancer gene. My family and your children are at a higher risk for a disease due to family history, but the test will not tell us anything more than we already know.
1 person likes this
@vandana7 (100617)
• India
6 Mar 12
Aw PA..
I too have the same attitude actually. But the difference is, I wouldnt like to know it when I have to undergo too much of treatment which will affect my quality of life. See..right now, I dont know if I have cancer, so I am fine. But if tomorrow somebody tells me I have cancer, then I will run about getting a second opinion, doing this test, that test, this biopsy, that specialist..and finally accept that I have cancer, and start with chemo may be. But if I dont know it, I would be watching television, eating watermelon as I am doing now, and laughing at some jokes. But the difference is..if there is a test like tuberculosis or diabetes test then why not. I mean, I could go on a regular basis twice a year and keep it under control. One thing is sudden, another thing is preventing the sudden news. Both are different. You have already accepted that even those who dont have that gene can get cancer, so where is the hitch. I'd say 70 to 80 percent of the population is likely to have that gene. It might get triggered only in 10 percent of those. But if I am capable of getting it checked and taking appropriate medicines, or change my diet, I might well avoid chemo and operation. Right?
I too have the same attitude actually. But the difference is, I wouldnt like to know it when I have to undergo too much of treatment which will affect my quality of life. See..right now, I dont know if I have cancer, so I am fine. But if tomorrow somebody tells me I have cancer, then I will run about getting a second opinion, doing this test, that test, this biopsy, that specialist..and finally accept that I have cancer, and start with chemo may be. But if I dont know it, I would be watching television, eating watermelon as I am doing now, and laughing at some jokes. But the difference is..if there is a test like tuberculosis or diabetes test then why not. I mean, I could go on a regular basis twice a year and keep it under control. One thing is sudden, another thing is preventing the sudden news. Both are different. You have already accepted that even those who dont have that gene can get cancer, so where is the hitch. I'd say 70 to 80 percent of the population is likely to have that gene. It might get triggered only in 10 percent of those. But if I am capable of getting it checked and taking appropriate medicines, or change my diet, I might well avoid chemo and operation. Right? 2 people like this
@purplealabaster (22091)
• United States
9 Mar 12
I think that you have an excellent point, Vandy. If it were a test for diabetes or tuberculosis or some other disease that is not only treatable but also potentially preventable with proper diet, exercise, medication, etc., then I would take the test and keep myself as healthy as possible. For a test like this where there is no treatment other than the things that I am already trying to do, then I do not see the point in taking the test.
I can see potential benefits in other people choosing to take the test, because then researchers could track the number of people that have the gene and get cancer and those that have the gene that do not get cancer versus those that do not have the gene and develop the disease anyway to try to isolate other factors that could potentially affect whether or not a person contracts the disease. On the other hand, I could also see insurance companies using this information to change insurance policies, raise premiums or refuse to insure a person. Therefore, I still do not know whether or not this test is a good thing.
1 person likes this
@scarlet_woman (23463)
• United States
5 Mar 12
um..i probably would.there's quite a few cancer deaths in my family of different types..the one i would not take however is the altzheimer's test.
i can deal with cancer that may be curable over something that'll make me lose my mind eventually.i don't think i'd wanna know.
1 person likes this
@scarlet_woman (23463)
• United States
6 Mar 12
i have no insurance..so the doctors don't suggest anything to me.
well to me,cancer has more of a chance of being cured or cut out.
altzheimer's,right now once you go downhill,that's pretty much it.
i have people with both in my family,and pain aside,it seemed the altzheimer's patients were in a worse hell.my grandmother would cry incessantly because she couldn't remember anything including who she was half the time.
well to me,cancer has more of a chance of being cured or cut out.
altzheimer's,right now once you go downhill,that's pretty much it.
i have people with both in my family,and pain aside,it seemed the altzheimer's patients were in a worse hell.my grandmother would cry incessantly because she couldn't remember anything including who she was half the time.1 person likes this
@purplealabaster (22091)
• United States
26 Mar 12
I have just the opposite experience. Most of the people in my family that had cancer did not survive, although there were a few that did. It was agony watching the ones that did not survive, and the ones that did survive have/had permanent scars from it ... not just physical but mental and emotional ones as well.
One friend that I know who had dementia was actually very pleasant and child-like for the most part. She might have had dark moments that I did not see, but mainly it was much more difficult for us watching her deteriorate than it was for her, because she did not realize what was happening. That is definitely a frightening prospect, but personally, I think that knowing that I was dying would be harder for me to deal with than not realizing what was going on as long as I wasn't scared.
@purplealabaster (22091)
• United States
6 Mar 12
See, now I am the exact opposite of you. I would take the test for Alzheimer's disease but would not want to know whether or not I carry the cancer gene. In most cases, the test for Alzheimer's disease is not any more conclusive than the test for the cancer gene, except in a very small amount of the population that have a combination of genes that guarantees they will develop Alzheimer's disease. Otherwise, the genes being present do not necessarily mean you will develop the disease and more than the cancer gene being present guarantees that you will develop cancer. Similarly, the lack of the gene does not necessarily mean you will not develop the disease, either.
Might I ask why it would bother you less to find out that you have the cancer gene versus the genes associated with Alzheimer's disease? If you have a family history of cancer, has the doctor suggested that you take the test for the cancer gene?
1 person likes this
@marguicha (223795)
• Chile
6 Mar 12
Dearest PA,
As you know, I have just finished chemo for a lymphoma. The doctors say my lymphoma has no cure but it´s on remission. The odds are an statistical curve. I have the wrong age, have smoked for a long time, lead a sedentary life, you name it. Yet, the lymphoma is smaller and I had almost no side effects from the chemo. I will die someday. We all will, because we were born.
What good would it do to me to know when will I die, what percetage of possibilities do I have to develop an illness, what possibilities of getting run by a druncken driver and so on?
I have to have some meds (monoclonal antibodies) every three months. In the meantime I can go anywhere. I´d think about vacations if the **** hackers hadn´t taken about $2000 from my Bank account. THAT illness won´t let me travel for the moment, unless the Bank returns my momey. But cancer is as terminal as any other illness. I carry a gene that makes my skin flare in psoriasis if I´m stressed. The best way to deal with it is to take a plane to Aruba. I want to believe that I have some not so dumb genes also. Genes are a batter of good and bad. Altogether they make us unique: a miracle.
Rereading this answer, I ask myself whether I should start smoking again.
Rereading this answer, I ask myself whether I should start smoking again.
@marguicha (223795)
• Chile
10 Mar 12
I don´t think the Bank will give me my money back either, PA. Yet I have taken it with philosophy. If I balance the good news with the bad ones, the good news about my cancer are more important than some money. I could still go to some place near, like Buenos Aires, as I have some dollars as prizes in my Visa card that can only be exchanged for air tickets. And I have my timeshare already paid. If I got a partner to go and she could pay for half the lodgings, I could use that money for the extra expenses. But those are dreams.
1 person likes this
@purplealabaster (22091)
• United States
26 Mar 12
They might be dreams, my friend, but you have the power to turn your dreams into reality. Besides, if we did not have dreams, then what would there be to live for, because dreams are just positive visions of our future ... and that is really what life is about, right - our families, friends and positive visions of our futures.
1 person likes this
@purplealabaster (22091)
• United States
8 Mar 12
My dear Marguicha, I am so glad to hear that you are doing well and that the cancer is in remission. I agree that senseless worrying about things we cannot change is not good for us ... it not only affects our health but also our ability to enjoy whatever life we have left to live.
I am so sorry to hear that hackers stole your money! It makes me so angry that after all you have faced already now there is another problem you need to deal with. I also know that you were looking forward to traveling if the cancer went into remission, and now those plans will have to wait for a while. I do hope that the bank returns your money, but there is very little likelihood of that, although banks might be better in your country than they are here.
As for smoking, I would definitely say that you should not start it again. Even if you are not concerned for your health, it is something that will drain your bank account and keep you from doing the traveling that you have been looking forward to doing.
I am so glad to hear that you are doing well and that the cancer is in remission. I agree that senseless worrying about things we cannot change is not good for us ... it not only affects our health but also our ability to enjoy whatever life we have left to live.
I am so sorry to hear that hackers stole your money! It makes me so angry that after all you have faced already now there is another problem you need to deal with. I also know that you were looking forward to traveling if the cancer went into remission, and now those plans will have to wait for a while. I do hope that the bank returns your money, but there is very little likelihood of that, although banks might be better in your country than they are here.
As for smoking, I would definitely say that you should not start it again. Even if you are not concerned for your health, it is something that will drain your bank account and keep you from doing the traveling that you have been looking forward to doing.
@allknowing (137781)
• India
5 Mar 12
Science is meddling I feel. Let us all live natural lives and cross the bridge when it is time to. Whether one knows if one carries a gene makes no difference as there are no prophylactic measures available and so what's the point. If anything it will only add to one's misery. Cancer is not selective it just appears without notice anywhere. But an early detection can keep it under check. When first symptoms appear that is the time to go for a check up and try to contain it as far possible.
1 person likes this
@allknowing (137781)
• India
8 Mar 12
The pros and cons of gene testing are several and the odds I feel are not in favour. If a couple becomes aware of the possibility that they will not produce a normal child look at their state of mind and there are chances that their child could be normal.
@dashboardc33 (314)
•
26 Aug 15
Oh wow, that is pretty cool technology, but I don't think I would want to know if I carried the gene for cancer or not because I wouldn't want to be worried too much about it.
1 person likes this
@purplealabaster (22091)
• United States
26 Aug 15
I feel the same way. I am already at a higher risk for developing cancer, and I suspect that I do carry the gene. However, if I know for sure, then that would make it even more serious. On the other hand, as technology improves than there is more they can do, I might consider taking the test if they could actually do something to help me improve my odds of getting cancer if they can better pinpoint the gene.
@purplealabaster (22091)
• United States
17 Oct 15
I completely understand and sympathize/empathize with what you are saying. It is not necessarily a good thing to find out that you carry the gene, especially since it is not a guarantee that you will get cancer just as not carrying the gene does not assure that you will not get cancer.
@purplealabaster (22091)
• United States
17 Sep 15
I am divided on the issue. If there is nothing that I can do, then I would prefer not to know, especially since I know that I am already at a higher risk even if I don't carry the gene. If identifying the gene can cut my risks of getting cancer, then I think that it might be a good thing to know and take action before I actually get cancer.
@DaddyEvil (137634)
• United States
26 Nov 15
I am very sorry to hear about this, @purplealabaster ! I wish you every hope and chance in the world, Dearheart.
Personally, no I did not take the test. Nothing was to be gained from taking it and the doctors already watch me closely for developing signs of cancer. I go into the doctor's office and have checks and tests run every so often. They did not help me worry any less, but then again, I doubt that I worried any more before they diagnosed me with a cancer not linked to that gene... And then the fighting began in earnest, PA.
I know this thread is very old but, if you can/will, what did you decide to do, hon? And may I ask how you are, as well? (friendly concern)
1 person likes this
@purplealabaster (22091)
• United States
28 Nov 15
I have decided not to take the test at this point. When someone can give me a valid reason for taking it, then I might change my mind. In the meantime, I already know that I am at a higher risk. I am also fairly certain that the cancer gene does run in my family, although that does not necessarily mean that I have inherited it.
I have had three cancer scares already, but (knock on wood) I do not have it. There are still two things they are watching closely. One they are pretty sure is not related to cancer, but they are still watching it and will do further tests if it changes. The other came back negative for cancer, but they still need to check it regularly as it can change quickly.
I am sorry to hear that you had cancer, my dear. I hope that you are better now and that you are cancer-free. Are you alright now?
@SViswan (12051)
• India
9 Apr 12
I wasn't aware of this gene or test till a few days ago when I read a story about it. One of the women in the story had lost all her immediate family to cancer and she had tested positive for the gene. She waited for around 12 years getting ready to die...sure that she would get cancer. But then she opted for surgery where she had her uterus removed.
I don't think the test is available in India. Depending on the price of the test, I might decide to get tested.Quite a few people in my family have survived or lost to cancer.
Knowing would make me more careful about myself.
1 person likes this
@purplealabaster (22091)
• United States
13 Apr 12
See, this is exactly why I do not want to take the test - "she had tested positive for the gene. She waited for around 12 years getting ready to die...sure that she would get cancer." That would probably be me.
I want to enjoy whatever life I have and not worry about when and how I am going to die.
Of course, knowing that I have a high risk of getting cancer does make me more concerned about my health and making sure that I get proper screenings, etc., but other than that I do not see what else I can do that would be positive and beneficial.
I want to enjoy whatever life I have and not worry about when and how I am going to die. Of course, knowing that I have a high risk of getting cancer does make me more concerned about my health and making sure that I get proper screenings, etc., but other than that I do not see what else I can do that would be positive and beneficial. @GardenGerty (160949)
• United States
6 Mar 12
More than likely, I would not take the test. The results of the test would not change anything that I currently do, and it would worry me, perhaps it would make me sad as well. It would serve no good purpose other than to run up a medical bill.
1 person likes this
@purplealabaster (22091)
• United States
7 Mar 12
Yeah, I hadn't thought about running up medical bills, but that is another good point. As far as I know, the test would be covered by my insurance except for the normal copay, which is enough, but some insurances do not cover these types of tests. Also, once the insurance has the results, if you do carry the gene, then there could be other potential problems with coverage, especially if you have to change insurance carriers.
The only positive side that I see in taking the test is if a person does not carry the gene, then it might put the person's mind at ease a little. Still, there are no guarantees that the person would not get cancer, even without the gene and living a healthy lifestyle, so I do not see where the positives outweigh the negatives.
@bounce58 (17385)
• Canada
16 Mar 12
No I haven't. But I don't think I would feel any better knowing if I carry the gene or not. Like you said(wrote), there are still no guarantee, and there are still other factors that could lead to having cancer or not.
I don't think I would do well having that information over my head. I'll just end up worrying all the time.
@purplealabaster (22091)
• United States
26 Mar 12
I feel the same way. I think that I would worry too much, and worry and stress can do awful things to our bodies ... in fact, they can lead to illnesses that are just as life-threatening as the cancer. Also, if there is nothing positive that can come from this test, such as taking measures that are known to prevent the cancer, then I do not see the point in taking it. Still, there are many that have taken the test, so some people must see a point to it. I am just wondering what that point might be.
Also, if there is nothing positive that can come from this test, such as taking measures that are known to prevent the cancer, then I do not see the point in taking it. Still, there are many that have taken the test, so some people must see a point to it. I am just wondering what that point might be.
@jkct02 (2874)
• Kota Kinabalu, Malaysia
6 Mar 12
For me, if knowing that will not change anything, I would rather not know. However, if possible, we should ever be ready for the "unexpected". If we know that we are having a terminal illness, we will try to arrange what we want to do while we are still able. As whether we are sick or not, there are just so many accidents that can happen anywhere anytime to anybody, so just take it that we will all likely be gone the next minute statistically. So, just be ready for anything and enjoy life while we still can.
1 person likes this
@purplealabaster (22091)
• United States
8 Mar 12
I think that you have a good outlook on life. We should try to be prepared for any unexpected emergency, which most importantly (at least in my opinion) means providing for our children if something should happen to us - be it an accident, illness or whatever. Still, we should also try to be as positive as possible and enjoy every day to the best of our ability not only for ourselves but also for our loved ones, because these are the memories they will cling to when we are gone.
We should try to be prepared for any unexpected emergency, which most importantly (at least in my opinion) means providing for our children if something should happen to us - be it an accident, illness or whatever. Still, we should also try to be as positive as possible and enjoy every day to the best of our ability not only for ourselves but also for our loved ones, because these are the memories they will cling to when we are gone.1 person likes this
@zaahro (748)
• Indonesia
6 Mar 12
My grandmom had a tumor when she was young, my mom has a cancer so I don't know wether I carry the gene or not (hopefuly not). I haven't taken any test yet and I am not going to take one. Knowing it will make me feel bad if I carry the gene, but just better to keep it like that and keep my health as good as I can
@purplealabaster (22091)
• United States
9 Mar 12
I can understand why you feel the way you do, because I feel the same way. Knowing that we have a family history of cancer puts us at a higher risk than the average person, so why make ourselves worry more by taking the test? Besides, the only thing we can do whether we have the gene or not is to get regular check-ups and try to live as healthy a lifestyle as we possibly can.
@Lucas818 (377)
•
6 Mar 12
Most probably I would take the test, and make it clear whether I'm one of the carrier or otherwise. It wouldn't make me feel better nor worse. I'm sure it can make me have a new perception of life. I can take early step to avoid the cancer gene turns bad, do as many prevention as I could, as most people know, cancer is a famous disease which still has no cure.
@purplealabaster (22091)
• United States
8 Mar 12
It is interesting that you are the first person here that has said they would take the test. I was hoping for responses from people that would take the test or have taken the test (I know there are many people that have taken it), because I really wanted to hear why they would take it and/or how they felt after hearing the results.
If you found that you did have the cancer gene, then you wouldn't worry more about cancer, especially since that means you have an increased risk of developing the disease? I know that trying to live a healthy lifestyle will help prevent or at least lower the risk of contracting most diseases, but there is no guarantee that it will keep you from getting cancer nor does early detection mean that you will be able to survive cancer if you had it. Wouldn't these things bother you just a little?
