, Volume 10, Issue 1, pp 70–83 | Cite as

Shaping the future and living in the present: Living a ‘good’ life with a familial heart disease

  • Els Geelen
  • Ine Van Hoyweghen
  • Klasien Horstman
Original Article


In genetic counselling practices, individuals are explicitly encouraged to take an active stance towards their future. The premise is that, by considering their genetic risks and taking preventive measures, they have some control over their future life and health. However, it is unclear how families engaged in genetic testing actually deal with the promises of genetic test results, and how they perceive their future. This qualitative study aims to provide insight into the way in which families shape and live their lives with genetic risks. How do they navigate life with a familial heart disease? We followed six extended families involved in genetic testing for hypertrophic cardiomyopathy in the Netherlands for 4 years. The present analysis of four of these families reveals how they make sense of the future in various ways and perceive the opportunities for control. Whereas some families strongly believe the future can be shaped in some way, others are reluctant, do not believe in or even protest against the notion that genetic testing will help them to shape their future lives. We conclude that in the pursuit of Nussbaum’s notion of the ‘good’ life, ‘shaping the future’ and ‘living in the present’ are not opposing or mutually exclusive repertoires; instead, traces of both are apparent in all four case studies.


good life future time decision making pre-symptomatic genetic testing hypertrophic cardiomyopathy 



This article is part of a project financed by the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO). The authors thank all participating families.


  1. Adam, B. (1998) Timescapes of Modernity. The Environment and Invisible Hazards. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  2. Adam, B. (2010) History of the future: Paradoxes and challenges. Rethinking History: The Journal of Theory and Practice 14 (3): 361–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alexias, G. (2008) Medical discourse and time: Authoritative reconstruction of present, future and past. Social Theory and Health 6 (2): 167–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Atkinson, P.A., Feathersone, K. and Gregory, M. (2013) Kinscapes, timescapes and genescapes: Families living with genetic risk. Sociology of Health & Illness 35 (8): 1227–1241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boenink, M. (2008) Genetic diagnostics for hereditary breast cancer. Displacement of uncertainty and responsibility. In: G. de Vries and K. Horstman (eds.) Genetics from the Laboratory to Society: Societal Learning as an Alternative to Regulation. Hampshire, UK: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 37–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Callon, M. and Rabeharisoa, V. (2004) Gino’s lesson on humanity: Genetics, mutual entanglements and the sociologist’s role. Economy and Society 33 (1): 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Charron, P. et al (2002) Genetic testing and genetic counselling in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy: The French experience. Journal of Medical Genetics 39 (10): 741–746.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chilibeck, G., Lock, M. and Sehdev, M. (2011) Postgenomics, uncertain futures, and the familiarization of susceptibility genes. Social Science and Medicine 72 (11): 1768–1775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fassa, A. and Sigwart, U. (2010) Septal reduction therapy for hypertrophic obstructive cardiomyopathy. Cardiovascular Medicine 13 (7–8): 228–234.Google Scholar
  10. Featherstone, K., Atkinson, P., Bharadwaj, A. and Clarke, A. (2006) Risky Relations. Family, Kinship and the New Genetics. Oxford: Berg.Google Scholar
  11. Geelen, E., Van Hoyweghen, I. and Horstman, K. (2011) Making genetics not so important: Family work in dealing with familial hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. Social Science and Medicine 72 (11): 1752–1759.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gupta, A. and Ferguson, J. (eds.) (1997) Discipline and practice: ‘The field’ as site, method, and location in anthropology. In: Anthropological Locations. Boundaries and Grounds of a Field Science. Berkeley, Los Angeles and London: University of California Press, pp. 1–47.Google Scholar
  13. Hammersley, M. and Atkinson, P. (1995) Ethnography: Principles and Practices. London and New York: Routeledge.Google Scholar
  14. Hershberger, R., Cowan, J., Morales, A. and Siegfried, J. (2009a) Progress with genetic cardiomyopathies: Screening, counseling, and testing in dilated hypertrophic, and arrhythmogenic right ventricular dysplasia/cardiomyopathy. Circulation Heart Failure 2 (2): 253–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hershberger, R., Lindenfeld, J., Mestroni, L., Seidman, C., Taylor, R. and Towbin, J. (2009b) Genetic evaluation of cardiomyopathy – A heart failure society of America practice guideline. Journal of Cardiac Failure 15 (2): 83–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Huijer, M. (2005) Orchestrating time in the genomic era: Timescape perspective on the changing practice of hereditary breast cancer prevention. Configurations 13 (3): 421–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Huijer, M. (2008) Je hebt meer tijd als je denkt Intreerede. Den Haag, the Netherlands: De Haagse Hogeschool.Google Scholar
  18. Huijer, M. (2010) Preferences versus capabilities: How to improve the (future) quality of life for women with abled and disabled children. In: T. Mathar and Y.J.F.M. Jansen (eds.) Health Promotion and Prevention Programmes in Practice: How Patients’ Health Practices are Rationalised, Reconceptualised and Reorganised. Bielefeld, Germany: Transcript Verlag, pp. 129–145.Google Scholar
  19. Huniche, L. (2011) Moral landscapes and everyday life in families with Huntington’s disease: Aligning ethnographic description and bioethics. Social Science and Medicine 72 (11): 1810–1816.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. ICIN Working Group on Hereditary Heart Diseases (2010) Genetic diagnostics and genetic counselling in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. Netherlands Heart Journal 18 (3): 144–159.Google Scholar
  21. Konrad, M. (2005) Narrating the New Predictive Genetics: Ethics, Ethnography and Science. Cambridge, UK: University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lock, M. (2008) Biosociality and susceptibility genes. In: S. Gibbon and C. Novas (eds.) Biosocialities, Genetics and the Social Sciences: Making Biologies and Identities. New York: Routledge, pp. 56–78.Google Scholar
  23. Lock, M., Freeman, J., Sharples, R. and Lloyd, S. (2006) When it runs in the family: Putting susceptibility genes in perspective. Public Understanding of Science 15 (3): 277–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lock, M. and Nguyen, V. (2010) An Anthropology of Biomedicine. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  25. Maron, B.J. and Maron, M.S. (2013) Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. The Lancet 381 (9862): 242–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Michels, M. et al (2007) Familial screening and genetic counselling in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy: The Rotterdam experience. Netherlands Heart Journal 15 (5): 184–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mul de, J. (2006) De domesticatie van het noodlot. Kampen, Germany: Uitgeverij Klement.Google Scholar
  28. Nowotny, H. (1985) From the future to the extended present: Time in social systems. In: G. Kirsch, P. Nijkamp and K. Zimmerman (eds.) Time Preferences: An Interdisciplinary Theoretical and Empirical Approach. Berlin, Germany: Wissenschaftszentrum, pp. 1–21.Google Scholar
  29. Nowotny, H. (2005) Time: The Modern and Postmodern Experience. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  30. Nussbaum, M.C. (1986) The Fragility of Goodness: Luck and Ethics in Greek Tragedy and Philosophy. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Nussbaum, M.C. (1990) Love’s Knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Öhman, M. and Söderberg, S. (2004) The experiences of close living with a person with serious chronic illness. Qualitative Health Research 14 (3): 396–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sarangi, S. and Clarke, A. (2002a) Zones of expertise and the management of uncertainty in genetics risk communication. Research on Language and Social Interaction 35 (2): 139–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sarangi, S. and Clarke, A. (2002b) Constructing an account by contrast in counselling for childhood genetic testing. Social Science and Medicine 54 (2): 295–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sarangi, S., Clarke, A., Bennert, K. and Howell, L. (2003) Categorisation practices across professional boundaries: Some analytic insights from genetic counselling. In: S. Sarangi and T. van Leeuwen (eds.) Applied Linguistics and Communities of Practice. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  36. Vosberg, H.-P. (2000) Genetic counselling for hypertrophic cardiomyopathy: Are we ready for it? Current Controlled Trials in Cardiovascular Medicine 1 (1): 41–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Weiner, K. (2011) Exploring genetic responsibility for the self, family and kin in case of hereditary raised cholesterol. Social Science and Medicine 72 (11): 1760–1767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Zwieten van, M. (2008) Constructing results in prenatal diagnosis: Beyond technological testing and moral decision-making. In: G. de Vries and K. Horstman (eds.) Genetics from the Laboratory to Society: Societal Learning as an Alternative to Regulation. Hampshire, UK: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 17–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The London School of Economics and Political Science 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Els Geelen
    • 1
  • Ine Van Hoyweghen
    • 2
  • Klasien Horstman
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Health, Research School Public Health and Primary Care (Caphri)Ethics and Society, Research School Public Health and Primary Care (Caphri), Faculty Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht UniversityThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Life Sciences and Society Lab, Centre of Sociological Research (CeSO)LeuvenBelgium

Personalised recommendations