When a test professes to be accurate at making an estimate of potential lifespan of an individual the test should at least be expected to have excelled in a battery of tests to confirm the effectiveness of the test. More so since the use of this apparatus is very likely to cause negative effect on issues such as insurance, loans and other financial services.
The fact that a correlation exists between some physical aspects of the human body and length of life is not adequate to allow for uncontrolled testing of individuals and it is the goal of this report to provide some arguments against the public sale and use of the test.
Consider the problem of diseases such as cancers where depending on various factors doctors are able predict the length of time the victim has to live.
Despite arriving at these conclusions based on relative damage that the body has already undergone and the potential to overcome the consequences the doctors still make attempts to save life and prescribe chemotherapy and other treatments.
In such cases it has been reported on numerous occasions that patient attitude and changes in lifestyle have seen the body bounce back and the life expectancy increase and surpass initial expectations. This is because science has found that there is always some possibility that the preservation of life is crucial.
If in such cases where there are visible signs that clearly indicate a reduction in life expectancy doctors still make therapeutic attempts, why should a test that will refute such therapy be allowed to be put on sale to the public.
It goes without saying that the correlation between telomeres and life expectancy alone is not adequate grounds allow such a product into the public domain until much more testing has been done. Consider a case where lifestyle preferences are the major cause of shortening of telomeres. Who is to say if there is a change in lifestyle normal growth of telomeres may resume.
Second let us consider the possible impact of allowing the sale of this test in the public domain. As we know insurance and assurance policies are based on pooling of risks. It goes without saying that if such a test were to be sold to the public insurance companies may begin to make it a mandatory requirement before issuing a policy.
Just as is the case with insurance consider issues such as taking a mortgage or another form of credit from a financial institution. Just as is the case with insurance banks and financial institutions would almost immediately begin to use it as a mandatory requirement.
What is worse is that once the test has been approved for public use there will be no way for an individual to lay a claim against the results. The end result of such a test going public appears to be more likely to cause harm than good.
The above points have led to the conclusion that the drug should not be used or sold in public. Making a comparison with other regular over the counter drugs, it is not uncommon for these over the counter drugs to undergo clinical trials on various species and eventually humans for years prior to their approval for public use by food and drug regulatory bodies.
If some of these drugs are therapeutic for common diseases such as flu how much more consideration should a drug with the ability to accurately estimate lifespan receive. Furthermore, once these regulatory bodies have given approval it becomes nearly impossible to establish a winning case against the drug.
Still in keeping with this once the drug has been approved for public use there is no stopping the insurance and even maybe banking and other credit institutions from making the use of the drug mandatory. It was based on these factors that the report maintained a position against the public sale and use of the drug.