I’ve been struggling with this lately: the dilemma of to test or not to test for celiac disease. Thomas and I talked it out last night, and it’s given me food for thought (hah!) but I haven’t made up my mind one way or the other.
Pros to testing:
- I’ll have an answer for what ails me
- It will be backed by scientific proof
- I know that wheat is actually damaging me, as opposed to just making me uncomfortable
- I’ll be better able to assert myself at restaurants etc (this is seriously an issue, it’s strange. I hate asking about gluten in food, because I don’t feel entitled to do so without a diagnosed allergy or ailment)
Cons to testing:
- I already have my answer — wheat doesn’t make me feel good. Why does that need external validation?
- If the test comes back negative, that could encourage me to eat wheat again (meanwhile, the blood test is not definitive)
- This could further exacerbate my tendency to need my decisions and choices validated; if it’s good enough for me, why isn’t that enough?
Basically, all the cons are about my head space not being what it should be to handle the results if they come back negative. Thomas has seen a positive change in me and I’ve noticed a huge difference in many areas of my life. But will a negative test eliminate all that positivity? I have a good thing going, and I know that I’d want to continue this lifestyle regardless of what the test results say. But if it does come back negative, I know it wouldn’t be good for my mind to hear.
I mentioned it at the intake interview with my new doctor last night, and he said he’d test for it during my physical. So there’s that, at least. But, as Thomas said: “You want a test? Go upstairs, eat a sandwich made with my bread, and tell me how you feel in an hour.”
He makes a damn good point, that man of mine. I guess I’ll chew and stew on this for awhile longer yet, and see what happens.