Comments on: Who’s Afraid of Genetic Testing?

By: Regan

Regan — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 14:45:13 +0000

My thoughts on genetic testing is that it might be useful for the “subtyping” that others have alluded to because my interests are in the possible predictive value for medical treatment and precise educational interventions.
In addition to myself and whatever druthers I might have, the other person in the equation is my older daughter. Given some of the family traits in illnesses and syndromes, she stated that she wants to know the future probabilities so that she can be forewarned and make informed choices on her own behalf, and I am inclined to respect her point of view.

By: Melanie, Bobby's mom

Melanie, Bobby's mom — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 13:20:53 +0000

Personally, I’d find genetic testing more useful *after* diagnosis to determine what “subtype” of autism Bobby had (if it were possible to effectively determine that!) , so I’d know what interventions would be most effective. We worked so hard to have our boy that an in-utero test would have changed nothing except our preparation, as Judith mentioned in the first comment. Bobby was different from his peers very early on in several ways, so it’s not like “our child vanished” as I’ve seen others (in the media!) say.

My interest for “subtype determination” comes from my dad’s experiences. He’s got Long Q-T syndrome, which is a frequently fatal electrical heart problem. Knowing his subtype of Long Q-T helped the docs figure out which meds would be the best fit without a risky trial and error period. I believe some types of cancer have the same genetic analysis that helps us know what treatments to try first. I’m a fan of more info in general.

By: This Week’s Top Posts

This Week’s Top Posts — Sun, 30 Sep 2007 17:29:29 +0000

[...] Who’s Afraid of Genetic Testing?What might such testing reveal about the causes of autism? [...]

By: Kristina Chew, PhD

Kristina Chew, PhD — Sat, 29 Sep 2007 01:22:37 +0000

The incidence of autism may feel as if it is an epidemic, but there is no epidemic of autism.

By: Liz

Liz — Sat, 29 Sep 2007 00:27:14 +0000

I consider myself impartial to the major belief camps in the ASD community and….

Actually, most of the folks that **I** know who propose there’s a link between vaccines and ASD also believe that there’s a “genetic susceptibility that is triggered by something/s in the environment/vaccines.”
Another point is that these same people feel more guilt/regret that ***they*** held their children down to get vaccinated than if they had -contributed- to their children’s ASD thru their genes.
The only reason they believe genes play a partial role to ASD is because they believe the increase of ASD is reaching epidemic proportions.

By: Patrick

Patrick — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 19:13:53 +0000

Hey Harold, I got a couple of links for you that kinda of show the things mentioned in the actual Statement part of what you quoted. Plenty of hot, though perhaps controversial, reading over there. As I can see you are quite a capable reader, I will have to leave you to follow up with the digging for any Truth behind it. The rest of what I see quoted were Questions, and not necessarily rhetorical ones, from how I read them.

http://onedadsopinion.blogspot.com/2007/09/juxtanother-juxtaposition.html

http://www.rescuepost.com

By: Kristina Chew, PhD

Kristina Chew, PhD — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 15:21:05 +0000

Dr. Lei’s post on advertising for the BRACAnalysis–it’s a direct-to-consumer genetic test for breast and ovarian cancer genes (BRCA1 and BRCA2)—-prompted me to think about genetics testing and autism, and the responses that sometimes appear whenever genetics are mentioned in regard to autism causation. As much as we might think such a test might not be necessary, what might we do if a company promoted such a test? (Or claimed that they were?) Calls for research in biomedical treatments and environmental causes for autism have indeed received much promotion of late.

I’d like to keep reflecting on why belief in mercury and/ vaccines as causes for autism persists, as Orac wrote about yesterday. Autism research is a fascinating topic, but not all of it has (or yet has) valid scientific evidence behind it.

Karen, I must quote you with a small change, “How could [Charlie] NOT be an amalgamation of his parents’ genes?” — Cliff, just had another object lesson in why parenting Charlie can come with fewer headaches than for my friends with typical kids….

By: Cliff

Cliff — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 15:06:46 +0000

It matters because science has rather heavily decided that there isn’t a link. Another one recently, and people are attacking that methodology, even when they assisted it. I think it’s fair to turn to ask why people psychologically won’t look to genetics and continue down the same path despite evidence.

On the other hand, I would just accept what I get. Now, I’m not a parent (that would not be a good thing, especially since I’m just turning 17 with no income to speak of), but I would think in that situation that I wouldn’t want to select for kids, and just learn and grow with what I get as part of the experience. I think, in many ways, your posts, Kristina, about your experiences with Charlie are evidence enough for the value of that.

Cliff

By: Harold L Doherty

Harold L Doherty — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 14:58:35 +0000

“Advocates of a causal link between vaccines or something (such as mercury) in vaccines and autism continue to call for more studies about rates of autism in vaccinated and unvaccinated children; they tend to disregard and even to dismiss genetic influences. Is there some fear of what genetic testing might find—-that there is a little autism, or some aspect of some of the features of autism, in parents, family members, and relatives of autistic children? That there is something in us autism parents that has contributed to our child’s becoming autistic?”

Do you have anything to substantiate the assumptions of fact set out in your comment? This comment seems little more than an exercise in jabbing at those who believe in a mercury or environmental connection to autism.

As one who is NOT convinced by the evidence on a mercury autism connection I still don’t see how this type of speculation about other persons fears and personal makeup advances our knowledge of autism or autism causality. Nor do I see how it advances the interests of autistic children or adults.

Personally, I am fascinated by all the research concerning all aspects of autism currently underway, whether it be genetic, environmental or increasingly – oriented towards a unified approach to understanding autism.

By: Karen

Karen — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 14:46:31 +0000

We could talk about this for hours, eh? I think some people might shy away from genetic testing because of the possibility of it leading to eugenics and also the fact that for decades, mothers were blamed for their children’s autism. So why would be want to be “blamed” again? Most people I know are much more progressive in their thinking by now about much of the “blame game.” My former husband spent a good many months blaming me for Pete’s early lack of interest in speech, however. It’s complicated and complex.

I have no doubt that my son’s autistic traits come from my former husband’s side of the family (I can name at least three others with similar traits, ex-H included) but I think I have some sensory issues and anxiety issues on my side (me included). How could Pete NOT be an amalgamation of his parents’ genes? My own issues only help me to understand my son better and for that, I am grateful.

karen in ca