Genelex, Genetic Counseling, and Perceived Risk

Med-Tech Blog

Wouldn’t it be wonderful to know things ahead before you make a mistake? Genelex has developed a lab process in which they can identify your genetic profile. This profile is then used to guide your decisions in medication intake so that your nutrition and drugs(s) will not cancel each other out—or worse, harm or kill you. The concept is similar to genetic counseling where two people’s genes can be examined to consider the possibility of a disease being passed onto their offspring. This preventive strategy sounds quite useful, and what I’m interested in is its psychological effects when conducted on different cases.

And interesting article from Washington Post discusses Genelex’s genetic profiling:

Labs Selling DNS Assessments

Think of how this test can affect our psyche and perception of risk when we know what exactly our chances of being harmed are. For instance, the article mentions smoking. Smokers overall have a 3X greater risk than nonsmokers of getting bladder cancer. Using genetic profiling, one can determine precisely what the chances of getting bladder cancer are. Those two genes that are “normal copies had a risk that was only two times greater. Those with one good gene and one bad one had a risk four times greater. And those with two bad genes had a risk seven times greater.”

This knowledge will no doubt have an effect on a person once they find out which “smoker’s” gene they have. It is likely that when a person knows their chances of getting a disease is significantly lower than every else, he/she may be more likely to take the risk and continue smoking or using whatever drug. A person who is already smoking knows that he/she is risking getting a disease. If he/she discovers that the chances of getting a disease is higher, one can say that since the risk is perceived as even higher now, the person is likely to quit the habit. I think the opposite; the person will continue with the habit because that person was willing to risk getting a disease in the first place, so their perceived risk wouldn’t really change.

On a note about the prescription process, the doctor is the one who prescribes the drugs, so why is it that doctors don’t already take it as their responsibility to make sure the patient isn’t harmed by the drug? It’s a little ridiculous to me that after we get a drug, then do we, the ones who aren’t medicine experts, seek out more medical aid and fork over the extra money to make sure the drug will fit well with other drugs and foods.

Pharmacist and Doctor

I agree with you that it is the doctor’s responsibility to make sure that the patient is not harm by the drug; however, we all have to understand that there are dozens of new drugs that are introduced to the market daily. Most doctors refer to a thick book of drugs when prescribing unfamiliar prescriptions to their patients. Therefore, I think that some of the responsibility should be shared with a pharmacist. It might even be a good idea for doctors to hire pharmacists on their medical team in order to provide the best service and care for their patients.

Doctors' responsibility

Ms. Robenstein, I agree with the point you made at the end of the blog. Prescribing doctors should be held responsible for a patient’s reactions to the prescription drugs. Patient’s seek their doctor’s knowledge and medical advice and basically place their health and lives their hands. While there are some medical situations that cannot be prevented, prescribing incorrect and harmful drugs is one of the medical situations that can be prevented. Doctors should take the extra initiative to make sure the drugs they prescribe are compatible with the patients’ to whom the drugs are prescribed. Because patients essentially place their health (to speak broadly) in doctors’ hands and pay a lump sum of money to do so, doctors should take on the responsibility to ensure potential effects of prescription drugs will not harm a patient.