[epenn922]

Here's another adoptee news article...

http://themonmouthjournal.com/defaul...ournal&he=.com

[Dickons]

I needed my medical health history to protect me after my events and I needed to share my diagnosis with my birth family as I also have a rare or rarely diagnosed disease.

Thanks to the doctors that pushed me and my mom for petitioning the courts and that I got a judge with an open mind to read her petition.

Medical history is needed before events happen so the doctors can do their job taking care of us.

Kind regards,
Dickons

[SuzySSunshine]

A cursory look at the syndrome this open records crusader references makes it crystal clear that there is absolutely no advantage in having a medical history.

[BrandyHagz]

makes it crystal clear that there is absolutely no advantage in having a medical history.

As someone who is facing life threatening medical issues - it’s often not the disease itself that makes the medical history important to know - it's what you don't know about your medical history that is important to know (and watch for) that can have the most impact.

Someone with a non-genetic heart condition likely needs to be aware of all manner of family related illness that could be present in a comprehensive familial medical history.

For people like me, who have my illness, there are other things that, if present in my medical history, I need to be screened for and monitored closely for, because the difference between knowing it’s in my family history and watching for it vs. not knowing it’s in my family history and suddenly dying from something that could have been monitored and possibly prevented, makes it crystal clear to me that there is a HUGE advantage to having a medical history.

Sure, arguments could be made that you can get the screening without having a medical history, but to that response I offer the following question: When was the last time your medical insurance provider covered a procedure or test that there was no compelling reason to perform? Just out the generousness of their heart?

The difference between knowing if my family history contains X, Y & Z and getting genetic screening tests to confirm or deny if I am at risk vs. not knowing if my family history contains X, Y & Z and getting genetic screening tests to confirm or deny if I am at risk has cost me roughly $9,000 this year alone – Insurance companies don’t want to pay for tests that are done unless there is a compelling reason (like a family history of the disease or disorder) to run it in the first place.

If having a medical history wasn’t useful/helpful in providing comprehensive treatment and preventative care – your diagnostician wouldn’t ask for it.

These types of things are not something people often think about until they are faced with their own mortality. Not having my medical history was always something that was just a fact of life…it took my Dr. stressing its importance before I realized it could very well be a factor in my death as well.

[SuzySSunshine]

The truth is that most medical professionals never take a useful medical history let alone reference it. And the notion that the lack of history presents some sort of danger is unreasonable and casts a very poor light on people who make the assertion.

I have never had any problem with medical treatment but I have never expected genetic screening tests for free. When people choose genetic screening tests (most of those people were not adopted btw) they have to pay for them unless there is some actual medical benefit to gathering the information.

When medical professionals treat people who are adopted, they treat conservatively. IOW they treat me as if I DO have a family history of breast cancer by starting screening earlier. If I chose to get the genetic screen then my insurance company might not pay but that is the same for everyone.

Every doctor is different but neither my doctor nor my child's doctor considers lack of medical history to be any sort of significant hindrance.

I think people who advocate for open records should be scrupulously honest about their reasons.

[Dickons]

SuzySSunshine,

Do you have any idea of the sheer number of 'rare' diseases that are known? 7,000 last count and most have little to no info about the actual disease, just enough to put a name to it, let alone a protocal to diagnose or treat it...that comes from many case studies about a disease.

Family doctors get little to no training in rare diseases and most will only see a handful in their practice - let alone be aware enough to recognise it from the 'common to many disease symptoms' that rare diseases present with? That family doctors are trained to not go to the zebra diagnosis first and to stick with the horse diagnosis that best fits the common disease?

Obviously you have NEVER been diagnosed with a rare disease that your doctors have never even heard of, let alone be able to diagnose...trust me I have and it almost cost me my life. I just had to get a new family doctor...who had been practicing for many many years and when I told him what I had, he looked at me with a blank stare and I had to tell him about what it was...

Because I had no family history, my disease was not caught in time by my family doctor to prevent two back to back life threatening events. If I had had my family history I would have been sent to the hospital before my first event happened when it was still at the symptom stage, I would not have suffered the second event, I would still be doing the job I loved and enjoying all the sports activities I used to do.

Instead of looking at 'current' knowledge of WPS, why don't you just say why you feel adoptees should not have access to their original birth certificates as adults?

Regards,
Dickons

[SuzySSunshine]

This is an interesting topic that bears more discussion so I will reply when I have more time.

However, your last question is backward. The article details a situation where the woman clearly did not need her adoption records in order to handle the illness. If you do a tiny bit of reading about the disorder she mentions it becomes crystal clear that if he child has the genetic component he has an upside down heart valve which is very easily recognized and checking for it is part of the current protocol.

What I am opposing in this instance is the misuse of the 'medical information' card to try to justify an interest in reversing closed adoptions for completely different reasons.

[BrandyHagz]

What I am opposing in this instance is the misuse of the 'medical information' card to try to justify an interest in reversing closed adoptions for completely different reasons

Ah ha! There is our problem - you are confused. Closed adoptions have nothing to do with closed records or open adoptions/open records.

These are ALL very different.

Open/closed adoptions involve relationships in adoptions, from the start. If open, there is contact. If closed, there is not.

Open/Closed records involve the records/paperwork/history and do not include the relationship aspect.

It's easy to get them confused. Most people who don't wish to have open adoptions often confuse the act of opening records to include required open adoptions. That is NOT the case.

You've stated in several of your posts that you don't wish to have an open adoption and that you think international adoption is more professional - which is your decision to make...but when arguing matters related to domestic adoption (remember, IA adoptions already include open records - you get a copy of them when you request them, without argument, from the US Government) it's important to know the difference.

International Adoptions have been "Open Records" for as long as IA has been taking place.

It'd be nice to level the playing field for all adoptions...

[SuzySSunshine]

The difference between records and adoption is clear though my wording was poor - but where did you get that idea about International adoption?

[BrandyHagz]

The packet you turn in when you land in the US contains all of the social worker reports on the child and ALL available data related to his or her birth parents and adoption, up to and including any medical history, ancestry and original documents, like birth certificate and the like (This varies by country/program)

Once home, you can submit a form to the US Government and they will, in turn, mail you a copy of everything contained in that file. Including in some cases, photos of the birth parents (it depends on the country).

To get the original documents, you fill out and file a G884.

[Dickons]

Originally Posted by SuzySSunshine

The truth is that most medical professionals never take a useful medical history let alone reference it. And the notion that the lack of history presents some sort of danger is unreasonable and casts a very poor light on people who make the assertion.

I guess my dad, all of my doctors and specialists are RARE too...or perhaps they are just smarter. Sorry to hear you look at me in a poor light.

I have never had any problem with medical treatment but I have never expected genetic screening tests for free. When people choose genetic screening tests (most of those people were not adopted btw) they have to pay for them unless there is some actual medical benefit to gathering the information.

When medical professionals treat people who are adopted, they treat conservatively. IOW they treat me as if I DO have a family history of breast cancer by starting screening earlier. If I chose to get the genetic screen then my insurance company might not pay but that is the same for everyone.

Hears the thing, not all diseases that have a genetic component have had the exact genes identified...can't test if you don't know what you are testing for.

Every doctor is different but neither my doctor nor my child's doctor considers lack of medical history to be any sort of significant hindrance.

Not to them but it may hurt you, perhaps not now but what happens when you reach middle age or older when hereditary diseases also present? You can only be proactive to a certain extent and after that genetics will prevail and the time between presentation and diagnosis can kill you. Some of the best tests are invasive and will not be done just in case. Knowing that strokes runs in your family can make a difference, knowing that certain cancers run in your family can ensure you get tested earlier than the norm, knowing that parkinsons or vascular demetia is in your family can protect you. You are your genes and if you are like me who never had anything wrong and was as healthy as a horse until the big one...and the precursor symptoms...the doctor focused on something else (a common disease) that was not life threatening instead of what was happening as I did not fit the profile unless you added my family history...and them bam...too bad for me.

I think people who advocate for open records should be scrupulously honest about their reasons.

I had my records opened solely for medical reasons...my doctors counseled me to get it so they could protect me from furture complications and to advise my family. My mom petitioned the courts on my behalf and my dad backed her. The judge opened my records - most likely because of who my dad is...seems pretty much like a valid reason for advocating for open records so others do not go through what I and many others have gone through...

Regards,
Dickons

[Dickons]

The best of the best say we should have a detailed family medical history...

Why is it important to know my family medical history? - Genetics Home Reference

Regards,
Dickons

[epenn922]

I found a lump in my armpit over 2 years ago. My breast cancer specialist said that having a history of breast cancer in my family would absolutely change his course of treatment for me -- and my insurance company would not pay for the treatment without a history.

[Dickons]

From the WHO

http://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_fil.../B116_3-en.pdf


Another good article on how genetics plays a role in just about everything...

Genetics of Disease: Information from Answers.com

Regards,
Dickons

[SuzySSunshine]

Again where did you get this idea about international adoptions????