Slashdot Mirror
Embryo Chosen For Its Tissue Type
Davi Bock writes: "A couple conceived their son in vitro, no big deal -- but they chose that particular embryo because its tissue type would provide a match for their dying 6-year-old daughter. When their new baby was born, the umbilical cord's blood was transfused into the daughter immediately. This just blows me away. Not that it's right or wrong, but that it's happening. The story is at the NY Times, free registration required."
Yep, I sure can't get marijuana or cocaine since they started that War on Drugs. But we are starting to get offtopic, and this is a skilled black market, but you get the general point. Black markets will never be completely eliminated, so long as there is sufficient demand.
My point is, if you make it illegal, it assures that the rich will be the only ones that can afford to fly overseas to get it done in countries where it is legal, or where it is tolerated. This is a pandora's box.
Illegality has more problems. Whats to keep scam artist doctors from preforming a normal in vitro without any genetic engineering, and charge for genetic engineering? Since it is all illegal, there is no recourse for the defrauded customers, if they even ever find out. Illegal means unregulated.
-
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
The first outtake is where the parents are "selecting" the embryo for their new son. After the selection has been made, the Dr informs the couple that while it isn't normally done, he could add some enhancements, such as musical ability, etc. so that the child could have an even better chance.
The second outtake hit me even more however... it was a coda which stated that had the technology and practices shown in the movie been availble the following people would never have existed. It then went on to list such people as Einstein, Hawkings, Beethoven, Helen Keller, etc.
Anyway.. good movie
Cheyenne
But if you think morality is outdated, you're wrong. Morals are just as popular as ever. New scientific concepts are not immoral by default. They are immoral if they contradict existing morals. Silicon chips were invented well after morality, and I don't think anyone is claiming that their mere existance is immoral. What are you trying to say?
Morality and religion simply aren't relevant to the fast-changing modern world, you say. You're wrong here, too. They are becoming more important, because morals are a lot easier to implement in our fast-paced world than tactics or strategy. I can take a number of devices, find you, and kill you. According to your argument, because it's scientifically possible, it should be defined as moral, and good. Thankfully for you, everyone else refrains from killing you. Why? Morals.
What kind of nonsense is this? Do you actually have any evidence for this or are you merely spouting hearsay, rumors, and urban legends?
Just two days ago, a headline came up on my pager. Two doctors were found to have allowed patients to die in order to harvest their kidneys. It is not common, but cases are documented.
Personally, I say if they're that desperate for a daughter, let them adopt one.
There are a lot of decisions that can be made that risk descending the proverbial slope - many ethical issues having nothing to do with this discussion included.
There's a difference, however slight, between screening for existing problems that are known to run in the families involved and simple selection of the "best" characteristics. Each human is precious - and it's a Good Thing to try and ensure that new humans will not die horribly or prematurely from things that can be avoided (or simply by choosing the more viable of the available embryos in an IVF process. Most people will, of course, continue to be born the old-fashioned way - since these risks only affect a relatively small number of people.
We, for instance, have no genetic "issues" leading us to IVF, it's a case of having no success over many years of the traditional method. Most IVF couples are in the same boat - genetic reasons are a tiny percentage of the reasons for IVF, it's usually plain old infertility problems that bring you there, not building a master race or any of that kind of crap.
The other issue this touches is the "what is a life?" question. Obviously, there are the traditional pro-life and pro-choice sides. In normal conception, one egg is fertilized by one sperm - and the question then becomes one of when is it human? Killing humans is, of course, wrong - but the definition is far different between the medical and the religious perspectives, and most people cleave between those standards. Most assisted reproductive technologies create (and often fertilize) as many as 20 eggs - are we morally obligated to implant every one of those? I don't think so (and 20 children is not in my plan, I'll guarantee that!). Is it an all-or-nothing propostion?
But if we can repair things like Huntington's or Cystic Fibrosis (for instance) in the womb or in the petri dish, why not? I don't think we should necessarily abort the child who will be born blind, but if the parents have 10 viable embryos to choose, and one of them has a gene that leads to blindness, and one has the CF genes, assuming they can't be repaired, why implant those when the others don't have it? That's where I draw the line. Biological reproduction is a crapshoot too, when genetic defects are concerned - having the gene doesn't guarantee that the child will have it, too.
I'd avoid the Mengele references as a part of this discussion, though. Not only did he and his sort remove a good deal of my relatives from the human race, but his effort were designed to produce better Aryans (survival of the fittest) - whereas what we're generally talking about here is intended to simply produce humans (of any race) that survive, period. There's no master plan, other than trying to provide a couple with a healthy child.
And it's awful close to invoking Godwin's Law, too, besides being something that, in a lot of places, would get you assaulted by the person you accuse.
- -Josh Turiel
-- Josh Turiel
"2. Do not eat iPod Shuffle."
I view humanity's progress as a child growing up. We'll make mistakes along the way, but we already have many powers our ancestors would have described as God-Like. If we survive, we will surely terraform and seed a planet with life. Possibly even life of our own design. Not much different from creating the heavens and the earth and llamas and goats and things.
To stay on topic, I wouldn't view anything these people did as immoral. They used technology at their disposal to save their daughter's life, and they got a son in the process. I've no doubt they'll care for the son every bit as much as they do the daughter. Not only did they not cross any lines, they weren't anywhere near any lines.
Someone pointed out that it's becomming feasible to choose a child based on genes for tallness or blonde hair or whatever. There is a potential danger that we'll reduce diversity in the gene pool. I don't really foresee old fashioned reproduction as being replaced anytime soon though.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
For every ethical dilemna, there are alternative situations where the ethics are far more confused. So the kid was selected on the basis of not having the disease, and being a good match for a tissue donation. I think that was a good choice.
It should be pointed out that the embryo was selcted (as is usual with in vitro fertilization), not designed. The tissue donation is relatively non-harmful to the donor.
Now, if you want to play "Bioethical Nightmare," there are plenty of other possible scenarios, none of which apply in this presnt situation.
Example: You need an organ. To ensure maximum biocomapatibility, it may prove advantageous to produce a clone from which the organs will be harvested. Since the clone will be discarded after harvesting, should measures be taken to ensure that the clone will not develop a brain?
Now that's an ethical minefield...
I would agree with the first half of your post. We do indeed use other people for a wide variety of things - society is built on people using people. I'm not bemoaning that particular fact. Organ donation is a "use" of other people, but not in the manner that I think is something to worry about.
What I was more particularly worried about was the specific use of another person's body against his or her will for the sole purpose of aiding someone else. What happens if we have required organ donation? Or even blood giving required by law? Or worse yet, either of the two by forced societal convention? Yes, that means lots more available to cure and/or help sick people, but at what cost? We lose control over that most basic of items, the determination of our body's fate. If I can't control what I do with my body, well, I might as well just give up now.
The very last paragraph is exactly what I worry about. It is the belief by scientists (and the technically minded) that "I'll just make this thing cause I can, and let someone else worry about how it gets used." That's the worst way to approach things. Kinda like saying "I'll cross the street, but not look for traffic until I get in the middle." People far, far better than I have worried about this (and stood on the fence and screamed about it) and we're still nowhere near a decent societal dialog. Take a look at Oppenheimer and Bohr.
We need to stop and think about what we do (and the consequences thereof) before we jump feet first into it. Similarly, our society needs to start making choices about things that aren't good for it. Maybe these things are good for a segment of society, but as a whole, they're bad. Unfortunately, society has a bad track record on this problem, but that doesn't mean I can't still scream about it, and hope that we wake up before it's too late.
Science, like life, should live by the manta "Just because you can, doesn't mean you should."
-Erik
There are always four sides to every story: your side, their side, the truth, and what really happened.
A ball of cells containing approximately 8 cells is destroyed and this is an abortion?
;)
If killing a cell that has the potential to become a human being is an abortion - I committed several million abortions just last night.
-josh
You think the creaters of the Internet knew the effects it would have on society in the future? I don't see why there are so many Neo-Luddites on a site like this.
[Once we] upset the balance of nature and to stop it's natural course, then we've crossed the line and we need to wake up and take a long hard look at what we're doing.
Back to my original argument: We have been doing this since we learned to harness tools other than our own bodies. You can't differentiate between "good technology" and "bad technology", that is the point of nearly EVERY article on /. Everyone on here criticizes laws being passed against "hacking tools", and stuff like that, and I agree.
This is the exact same thing. You can't brand a technology "bad" or "good" like that. Technology has posed a serious threat to our existance for millenia, ever since the invention of the first weapon used to kill another man.
-
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
The important thing here is for the parents to make the boy feel loved, so that it isn't an issue of who loves who more, but whether or not he is loved, which is the parents' job in the end, not the kids'.
While this could cause problems for the boy down the line, the damage could be minimalized or even non-existent if the parents truly love the boy, and treat him like they love him just as they would treat the daughter.
This problem doesn't have anything to do with genetic screening, but simple affection and genuine universal parenting problems. Witness middle child syndrome, where in a family of three, the middle child feels that the oldest gets all the privledges while the youngest is the baby, and the middle one feels rejected. This isn't about genetics but parenting, and if the parents truly love the boy, then this issue will be moot.
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
I'm amazed by the glaring subtlety of Denise Grady's aricle. Her opinions were pushed into this by choice of goulish details. The ethical conundrum of conceiving six children only to birth one was thrown in our teeth against the parent's objection to the one in four chance of their next naturaly concieved child having a one in four chance of a fatal disease. The little girl's statement at the end was especially chilling, "My brother's going to give me some of his blood to make me feel better." Were these details and that carnival photo put in there to encourage serious debate or to titilate?
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
I'm a little ambivalent about it. I don't think the parents (or doctors) made a wrong decision. But it does open the door for more ethically questionable practices. (chuck the new kid, just keep certain parts for the old one..)
mostly though.. it's positive.
//rdj
No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
--Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
http://partners.nytim es. com/2000/10/04/science/04BLOO.html
schweet... too bad they canned the cypherpunks/cypherpunks account there, but as long as this works who cares. No annoying banners or anything...
1. The parents will (this is not an attempt of Jedi mind tricks) love their son just as much as their daughter. If they won't even love him more for saving his sister.
2. Any child might one day as their parents: "Mom, Dad. Did you ever think of having an abortion when you were pregnant with me?" And the answer might be something like "Yes, we discussed it,and I/Your mom/Your dad wanted an abortion, but I/Your mom/Your dad refused to have it".
3. Just think about all the single parents. Their children (not all are single because the other parent want nothing to do with their kids) face the fact every day that their other parent "don't love them" and want nothing to do with them.
---
This message has been ROT-13 encrypted twice for higher security.
The problem is, as you say, drawing the line. But how do you actually do that? Unfortunately, even in your argument you can see the difficulty in separating "medical" from "personal." After all, couldn't resistance to disease be classified as either?
If the child was screened for, say, color-blindness, then how is this wrong? How does dealing with color-blindness help someone? Granted, diversity is necessary (although the simple nature of DNA will take care of that just fine) but why does having the gene for color blindness help a man or even mankind? After all, it seems to me that color blindness can't help anyone, but remains so common simply because it doesn't hurt your chances of reproductive success very much to have the trait.
Now, I'm not trying to say that we should screen out color blindness in embryos at all. On the contrary, I think that people shouldn't have their embryos screened unless there is a history of some genetic disease (the "medical" reasons you refer to) but I think it's truly hard to actually say to a person "No, you can't have your child screened for color blindness because it's morally wrong!" Why is it wrong? I really can't say for sure. That's what makes the whole thing so difficult.
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
This is not the first time such a procedure has been done; fetal development is not affected by removing one cell. Heck, remember that early on in development an embryo can split in two, and each half form a perfectly fine infant. (Actually, it might not be an embryo yet at that stage - blastula? Gastrula? Whatyamacallit? Dammit Jim, I'm a hacker, not a biologist.)
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
----
I pretty much agree with you, and I'm equally worried by the implications of all this. But in this case, and in many like it, the quality of life of the younger sibling is going to be improved by being born into a family free of the stress of a daughter dying of leukemia. Let's face it, that's just good for everyone in the family and anyone who even remotely knows them.
The problem with your fine line is that it's often illusory - what's currently regarded as a "medical reason" may not be tomorrow, or vice-versa. Stress is a huge influence on every aspect of a child's development, and there are many ways that this sort of monkeying about can reduce it.
I'm entirely pro-choice, but I have a serious problem with the mother in this story claiming she couldn't possibly naturally conceive and then abort a child if it tested positive for this disease, but she's fine ending the existence of several embryos that started life in a petri dish (as her son did) because they weren't viable donors for her daughter. This "free perk" stuff is just grim.
As far as I can tell, this simply exposes the absurdity in the anti-choice side of the abortion debate; just when are we supposed to think that life "begins"? Note that I'm not accusing this mother of anything but make a personal, emotional decision - but call it what it is. You can't be revulsed by abortion and find preimplantation selection just fine without admitting that there's no grounds for a philosophical argument here whatsoever.
Wow, I sincerely and honestly hope that you didn't mean to say:
> If something is scientifically possible, then it should automatically be moral and good
To assume that everything "scientifically possible" is good is a serious mistake. I'm not going to debate whether or not this case is morally right or wrong, but I do think that it can lead to dangerous territory.
~Steve
--
~Steve
--
"<r-xr-xr-x> Just try to edit me" -- www.ircnews.com
If something is scientifically possible, then it should automatically be moral and good.
... at least to me.
Oh, you mean like Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
I'm not saying that I like the morals we have in our society today, but to say that "anything that can be done should be done, no matter what the consequenses" sounds like a worse alternative
The basic precept for people against these type of procedures is that a distinct human life begins at conception. The rest of the handwaving on both sides beyond that is moot considering the precept -- whether or not you agree with it.
They are selecting between different human lives as to which will live... and knowingly started out figuring a couple dozen would be destroyed. It's appauling no matter the reason -- again for those of use holding to the precept -- doesn't matter if it is for gender, whether they carry a "homosexual or alcolohic gene", a disease, whatever.
For someone who holds that human life begins at conception, the only thing you can try to argue is that some human life is inherently more important than others... good luck... especially when it comes to children.
Brian Macy
How about having a child to keep a failing marriage together?
As an extra hand on the farm?
Someone to take care of YOU when you get old?
How about the common - Didn't pull out in time.
Are you willing to address these 'excellent reasons' for conception 1st?
>we can really take a look at what it means for everyone involved, the family, the children, and the human race...
If you gave a DAMN About the human race, you'd ask about overpopulation and resource consumption.
If it was said on slashdot, it MUST be true!
I wonder how come this isn't widely known yet ... s/www.nytimes.com/channel.nytimes.com/
---
Why does it matter? Who cares if we genetically create better (or customized) people? We choose the sex of chickens by controlling egg temperature, and we have done it for years!
I am SO SICK of these people yelling about "playing god". We have been playing god ever since we learned how to harness fire and sharpen sticks. This is just another step in our evolution.
-
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
And what the hell is so wrong with selecting a child that will be smarter, better looking, and healthy?
It'll be like fashion - a small number of individuals and media outlets determining what is "in" at the moment, and people will base their desires for their children on that. If you look at the names that are given to kids you see the same thing - certain names become briefly popular whilst someone with that name is famous, and then it dies out again.
It'll be a nation of celebrity clones endorsed by glossy magazines. Is this really what you want?
Burris
That's a line we've been crossing ever since the dawn of civilization; the only difference now is that we have another way of doing it. Though it's a decidedly more advanced, subtle form of controlling the lives of others than, say, a rock afixed firmly to the end of a stick, that's not to say that one can no longer use a rock tied to a stick to mess with other people's lives for your own benefit.
We humans (especially Westerners, and particularly Americans) like to cheat. We don't like to play the hand Fate deals us, so we dicker, moan, whine, and complain to the dealer, while we busily re-arrange the cards to our liking, then say, "Oh, jeeze, look what I've got!" I'm all for stacking the deck in your favor, don't get me wrong. Transplants, drug therapy, all sorts of operations and treatments, hell, they're great.
Cheating is an interesting angle on the issue. Here's a question: how is it that we are "cheating Fate"? If "Fate" really is the driving force of life, why is it that "Fate" wasn't the one that handed this couple the opportunity to use science to concieve a child that a) they wanted and b) would save the life of their daughter? If such a scientific discovery is to be deemed "cheating Fate", then I'd advise that unless one is already walking barefoot and naked to and from work, it'd be best to stop using artificial means of transportation and human-crafted articles of clothing to thumb one's nose at Fate and the perfectly good body Fate gave you in the first place.
What bothers me is that we're rapidly approaching the point where we start to use other people as parts banks for ourselves. "Oops, drank too much liquor over the last 10 years, better warm up that clone I had growing in the bank, I need a new liver..."
Again, you're a bit late on this one. We are already using other people for this end. The nice thing about the advancement of this technology is that it may be possible to reproduce specific organs independent of a human body to avoid the messy matter of wasting away for years until the suitable voluntary donor or tragic automobile-accident victim hopefully fills your organ needs. Don't even start to think of the emotional distress of your body rejecting such a precious thing as some other person's donated organ.
In short, if Fate, God, or whomever else you put your faith in, had deemed that we were not to do what we are able to do today, they never would have given us the capacity to do it in the first place. The Higher Power is pretty universally all-knowing and all-powerful, whatever your Higher Power may be. The Higher Power is perfectly capable of stepping in at any time and ending our little games; what's more, the Higher Power probably has a bit better idea of exactly what the Higher Power wants than any of the Higher Power's creations may have.
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
Sometimes that which doesn't kill us doesn't make us stronger either - it just annoys the fsck out of us instead.
Your question assumes that there is a "someone" to be born at that state. But a few cells is not a "someone". It can be argued that a "someone" doesn't happen until well after an infant is born; it takes experience of the world to make a "someone" - an blank brain does not a person make.Deciding after a few cell divisions whether development will progress towards a "someone" is no different than deciding pre-conception; by your thinking, am I deciding "who should or shouldn't be born" by using a condom?
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
As a pro-life advocate (perhaps rare on slashdot, I don't know) I like to believe that society's rulees will help the unborn as well.
_ 954000/954408.stm
Let me be straight about this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/low/english/health/newsid
This story entitled "baby created to save older sister" is obviously biased the other way, but it has a few facts that are missing.
1.Children with Fanconi anaemia suffer from severe bleeding and immune system disorders and invariably die by the time they reach eight or nine.
2.Life spokesman Kevin Male added: "Adam was the fifteenth embryo created which meant fourteen people were killed before him. In essence a white coated technician brought this human being into the world simply as a means to an end."
3.In the UK, PGD [preimplantation genetic diagnosis ] has been used in five clinics for the past 10 years. The technique has resulted in the birth of about 20 healthy babies, who would otherwise have been at risk of serious genetic diseases such as cystic fibrosis or haemophilia.
Is my position this extreme?
Yes.
Are we so moral that bringing human life to an end at this stage is justifiable?
-Ben
Yes, of course there are ethical questions surrounding this. But as far as I can see the parents are absolutely aware of that, and they've made a very sensible choice.
Consider: they already wanted more children, but never could, because they might be born with the same disease. For the last three years they have been looking for a solution. There is a new technique to select embryos that don't have the disease. This has ethical problems in its own right, but I think it is sensible to allow it in the case of a lethal disease, and that is pretty normal nowadays. Next, as a *side effect* of that, the life of their daughter can be saved with tissue that would normally be *discarded*.
It would be different if they hadn't thought about this, if they might not have taken a second kid otherwise, if the only kid they could select with the right tissue would have to live with some other problem, if the disease wasn't lethal, or if the tissue could instead be used to cure a more critical case. But those are not the case.
I would say this ethical problem is easy. They made the right choice. People who shout "Ethics!" have just not read the article.
I believe posters are recognized by their sig. So I made one.
I think that this case is perfectly ethical and moral, and I agree with Lita's oppinion on this. There is a difference between scientific possibility, and our application of that possiblity.
Someone mentioned the two nuclear bombs that the US dropped on Japan. No, it is not ethical and not moral to kill thousands of people. But yes, there is good that can come from nuclear physics. The scientific capability of splitting an atom to obtain energy is good. Using it to kill people is bad.
When primitive civilization realized the scientific capability of creating a sharp edge, that is good. It is the foundation of many of the manufacturing techniques we enjoy today. Driving that sharp edge into someone to harm them is bad.
The problem isn't science. The moral and ethical problems are in society and humanity as a whole. Science and discovery are always good. It is the amoral and unethical ways in which we obtain and utilize that science that is the problem. With or without science, the unethical and amoral problems of humanity still exist.
(\(\
(^.^)
(")")
*beware the cute-bunny virus
"[...]Johnny had to live with the knowledge that were it not for some quirk of fate, his parents wouldn't have had him."
Duh. This is true for every single child born. If it wasn't for some quirk of fate, my parents would never have met. If it wasn't for some quirk of fate, the "sperm that became me" would have missed its target. If it wasn't for some quirk of fate, I might have died from a heart disease soon after I was born...
I think it's safe to say that as long as the parents actually love little Johnny, the psychological impact will be negligible.
ZZ
I think the decision made by the court in England is correct (in my point of view). In this case the investigation of the genes is also needed to save a life (which is good), but it is a first of a kind. Ethical issues like choosing attributes of a human being are possible, but are they desirable. This one is the first of a process which is ending with you or me at the doctors desk 'designing' our breed. And a female-male child is not necessary anymore. Being a clone of your father,mother, or a child of a homosexual couple will be possible.
Of all those possibilities, I think that cloning is a bad thing. Certainly on a large scale: it makes a living species vunerable for deceases. See the decease as a script kiddie with a list of which OS is running where. Once he got a tool he can break in anywhere he wants.
Say it with me, "Geneticaly-Designed Placenta Soup." Yummy.
It's all goulish to me.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Out of all the direct responses, yours was the most intriguing.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
I'm glad people are doing this, and hope the stem cell and clone research move along quickly. It gets around the goulish business of making human embrios for parts.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
pffft. My doctor couldn't even play Godot ;)
I don't know why everyone gets so heated about this kind of topic. We're within sight of total positional control of atoms, which translates in the long run into being able to create just about any material structures given the required component elements.
It doesn't take much extrapolation from this to see that human bodies will not remain in their present form for long, and that in fact the word "human" itself has a rather limited lifespan. Total self-transformation for purposes of repair, special function or simply vanity is on its way --- especially the latter for most, but I bet the military is more interested in the former.
In development terms this is a long way off, but the key observation is that the difficulties seem to be just engineering ones: "merely" a lot of handle turning required, like that which turned the first transistor into today's complex computers.
In that context, minor tinkering with our biological systems as in the present topic is, well, utterly minor. If this causes a storm today, we're in for global hurricanes tomorrow.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
> After all, it seems to me that color blindness can't help anyone, but remains so common simply because it doesn't hurt your chances of productive success very much to have the trait.
One problem is that well meaning people will say, I don't see how this could possibly be a valuable trait. However, unless we completely understand all about DNA and humans (unlikely to ever happen), we just won't know. We could very easily attempt to do good, for example by eliminating color blindness. If it turns out (I'm not saying it's true or is likely. It's just an example...) that color blindness is linked to resistance to some disease or ability of the eye to withstand larger UV fluxes, then in some unknown time in the future, then that decision to eliminate color blindness could come back to haunt us. Instead of having some people who are resistant to the disease or increased UV radiation, nobody would be. In the language of population dynamics, reducing genetic diversity will likely lead to bigger booms, but also bigger busts. Is reducing color blindness worth the risk? I don't think so. Obviously for more serious problems (e.g. diabetes) it becomes a tougher call.
I've like to make a great quote from an otherwise pretty bad movie:
"Yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should."
-Ian Malcolm (Jeff Goldblum) in Jurassic Park
There was a great article in Wired 6 months ago by Bill Joy (yeah, that Bill Joy), that brought up some of the issues we see here. Check it out.
Now, I don't agree with alot of what Joy postulates, but the subject needs serious consideration. NOW. Not tomorrow, not when we get around to it. Because putting off a discussion and a decision means we don't have one at all. We'll just turn around one day, and wonder, "How did we get in the fucking mess?"
I'm not really sure about this story - I don't have all the details, so I'm reserving judgement (or at least, an opinion).
We humans (especially Westerners, and particularly Americans) like to cheat. We don't like to play the hand Fate deals us, so we dicker, moan, whine, and complain to the dealer, while we busily re-arrange the cards to our liking, then say, "Oh, jeeze, look what I've got!" I'm all for stacking the deck in your favor, don't get me wrong. Transplants, drug therapy, all sorts of operations and treatments, hell, they're great.
What bothers me is that we're rapidly approaching the point where we start to use other people as parts banks for ourselves. "Oops, drank too much liquor over the last 10 years, better warm up that clone I had growing in the bank, I need a new liver..."
You can argue that its already starting, with the trade in black-market organs (particularly kidneys) harvested from the 3rd world for 1st world clients. That's bad (and if you think those people really are giving them up by their free will, dream on).
If you and the wifey are at high risk for having a kid with a major genetic problem, well, maybe you shouldn't be having kids. Adopt a kid - they're plenty available, waiting for a nice home. But, not, we're selfish. Gotta have it. And when it doesn't work out, well, whine, and try to rig the game.
Do what you can for yourself. But the minute you start messing with other people's lives to cover for your mistakes (or hell, even to cover for the screwy hand of Fate), well, that's a line I think we better not cross.
-Erik
There are always four sides to every story: your side, their side, the truth, and what really happened.
When the atomic bomb was created and tested for the first time, they weren't sure if it would set off an uncontrollable atmospheric chain-reaction. Is that scientific innovation really necessary, if it risks humanity?
You have to draw the line somewhere, between the ideas that have some value for the human race and those that have the potential to overrun the human race. Between ideas that destroy for a scientific purpose and those ideas that destroy for the purpose of destruction. I think, in this example, that killing hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians crosses that border.
_________
Not medical mistakes, but parental ones.
I'm talking about the "hey, we're 45 with 2 kids already, OOOOPS, we forgot the birth control kind of mistake!"
I have a pretty good idea (since I'm 9 years younger than my brother and 10 from my sister) that I was such a mistake. There are probably tens of thousands of others in the US just like me. Does that mean my parents love me any less than my siblings because I wasn't planned? No.
Does this mean the parents of that son love him any less than their daughter? No. Get off their backs.
Light a fire for a man and he'll be warm for a day. Light a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
Today proper tissue type, tomorow correct eye color. You can justify creating and destroying 15 people to get one with blue eyes, right? Embrios want to grow, sperms, eggs, and chunks of my tounge do not.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Daughter: Mommy and Daddy love me more than you.
Son: Do Not!!!
Daughter: Do Too!!!
Son: Prove it.
Daughter: Take a look at this news archive site. That's us they're talking about.
Son: Is not.
Daughter: Is to. The only reason they had you is so they could save me. Otherwise they never would have had you.
Son: (to father) Dad, is this true?
Father: Well...
And from that day forward, little Johnny had to live with the knowledge that were it not for some quirk of fate, his parents wouldn't have had him.
It's hard to say exactly what the psychological impact of this will be on Johnny, or whatever his name is. I think it's safe to say it won't be positive.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
It's funny but some of us feel that way about children and adults even animals before we have children. More people should feel this way. What's wrong with our culture?
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
I saw this on TV, and they were trying to make a big deal about it. I was thinking, "yeah, so why is this news?" They had a sound bite of some alarmist ethicist who was saying this is a slippery slope to designer babies. Bullocks. If you were planning to have a child anyway (which they were), why not select an egg/embryo who could help save a child you already have? This is a fabricated "issue".
And where are the anti-abortionists claiming that the discarded eggs/embryos where actually "aborted" and murdered? My god they murdered those poor unborn unicellular children!
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Sure, in this case the criteria were simple; that the child's tissue would match that of his sister. Nothing to worry about surely? No, but where does this lead on to? The selection of embryos for other characteristics? If it is alright to select for medical reasons, who is to say that it isn't alright to select for other reasons - intelligence, appearance, resistance to diseases...?
Tough questions! Natural selection has handled that process for millions of years, with no consideration for individuals at all. In recent years, mankind has halted much of that process in many ways.
Those ways include medical science which can allow a person who might never have reproduced to live a long life and have children. Warning lables and safety devices meant to protect people from death and injury due to lack of thought (though the determindly foolish will inevitably find a way to get themselves killed anyway).
The real question is does mankind have the wisdom to know its' limitations? The monte carlo proces of nature may not seem 'wise', but it did get us all the way from random chemical reactions to beings that can contemplate these matters.
It looks like God DOES play dice with the universe, but perhaps the dice are loaded.
Ultimatly, the science is ethically neutral. The uses it is put to make the difference.
Before my boy was born (10 months ago) we were asked if we wanted to pay $1500 to save the cord blood. At the time this was a considerable amount of money for us - we didn't sign up. Now I think that was some commercial outfit trying to make money. When Ian was born and before the doctor cut the cord, he drew a bunch of blood from it. I'm not really sure where it went (research, storage, etc??). I probably should have paid more attention. Luckily he is healthy and happy.
For anyone questioning the ethics of what that couple did, I ask you this, "do you have kids?". In general, I would guess you don't.
It is absolutely *unbelievable* the change in perspective a kid gives you. I would die or kill for Ian. When I see movies with sick or dying kids I have to turn away. The thought of anything happening to him makes my heart sink.
I'm the fourth of four kids and I was a "mistake". Sure proof that "rhythm method" contraception doesn't work. Did my parents love me? Of course you morons - No sane person can look at their own flesh and blood and not feel overwhelming love.
Have one and see. I'm glad I did.
-tim
This couple, as I've read in many of the reports, wanted another child. Unfortunately, they had a significant risk of conceiving another child with the same disorder. Since it was possible to screen the embryo for the defect, they did so - and as luck would have it, a healthy embryo could also, after birth, give them a chance to cure their other child.
There are some aspects of this (ie., selection) that could raise ethical questions, but I don't think this case is one those questions apply to. If anything, this is an exapmple of the positive uses of the kind of reproductive and diagnostic technologies that are available to us.
I can also state unequivocally (since my wife and I are going through this now) that IVF is not a trivial procedure at all. The process is complicated, painful, and requires substantial fortitude and commitment to complete. The end result is a fairly large number of fertilized embryos, of which the most robust are identified and up to five of which are implanted (in all but a handful of cases, only one or two of them implant successfully). In a case where there is a substantial risk of a deadly defect being passed, it's to the benefit of the future child, the parents, and society as a whole if that defect can be identified and either avoided or even corrected.
The challenge is to avoid the slippery slope of typing for positive, "trivial" characteristics (like hair color, eye color, sex, height potential), and just look for the severe and fatal genetic defects that can occur.
- -Josh Turiel
-- Josh Turiel
"2. Do not eat iPod Shuffle."
I think this is a wonderful thing personally. Not only does genetic screening save their next child from having anemia (and I assume other major genetic disorders) but it also allows them to save the life of their other child.
The moralists may contend that it's unethical to bring a child in to the world simply for parts, but that isn't really what happened here. They wanted a healthy child, and the ability to save their other child doesn't mean that they won't love or care for the baby as well. This is just one of those things that really makes me proud to be a student of biology, because we're actually seeing the benefits of all of this, and there are many more to come. Despite all the scares and potential for wrongdoing, the ability to save a child from leukemia with a birth is worth all the scares from the moralists.
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
That's the thing - I see a significant difference between repair and design. However, not all people see a line between them. My intention in pointing out the issue with embryos is fairly simple; it's given that every embryo represents potential life, and human life at that. I think I may have chosen my words poorly before.
However, given that embryos _are_ life to whatever extent we consider, do we have a moral obligation to make sure each one of those embryos has an opportunity to live? Or do we decide which ones to bring to term? I have no problem with deciding at that stage, though I find the idea of aborting that same person-to-be once it's in the womb to be repugnant (though I am pro-choice, my personal choice would be for life - I just consider it to be a personal moral issue rather than a societal one). And I believe that that line is drawn at the point when the fetus becomes viable outside the womb, however early that point can be made by technology. When you are using technology to assist in creating a child, I have no problem with deliberately picking the "best" embryo - assuming the criteria is simply one that is robust (some embryos don't form as well - I've read in many places that roughly 30% of all fertilized eggs abort themselves at an early phase and never result in a term pregnancy) and free of known defects that will result in the likely or certain death of the child. I'm not concerned with screening for things that result in a social or physical disadvantage, and most "defects" don't necessarily have a bearing on a person's ability to live. Blindness is not incompatible with life. A misshapen arm isn't either. Huntington's is guaranteed early death, though - and I would not implant an embryo with that gene.
The difference is that things like a tendency towards breast cancer is just that - a tendency. It's not a certainty. Whereas Huntington's, for instance, is a death sentence - if you have that gene combination, you will die from it - the only question being when. And I think that distinction is how you stay ethically correct in these matters.
That particular government's efforts to create a homogenous people are horrible and brutal, but not (thankfully) in the lab - that line hasn't been (publically - maybe it's happening now somewhere in the world in private) crossed anywhere since the second world war. Neither of us have directly suffered as a result of this, for which we should be thankful. And I think society, as a whole, has learned some lessons from the era - namely that there _is_ a difference, however small, between enabling people to be born disease-free and eugenics. Most people are not willing to cross that line, and I won't either. The couple in the US having a child that does not suffer from their daughter's disease doesn't cross the line. The English couple (that you referred to in your link - it was an interesting article) that wants to specifically have a daughter - they're straddling the line. And to have a baby that'll be 6'5" male and run a 40-yd dash in 4.3 seconds because you screened for it - that's just plain wrong and veers perilously towards eugenics.
That said, when it's time to have our own implantation done (sometime next week), I simply want to implant the appropriate number of embryos that have the best chance of attaching and allowing my wife to bring them to term. And I don't give a shit about their sex, hair color, handedness, height, or anything else. I just want to see healthy children that can be brought to term safely, that we can love with everything we have and raise to be the best humans possible. That's all I ever want to ask for - the chance to be the best parent I can. And to me, that's what assisted reproduction is all about.
- -Josh Turiel
-- Josh Turiel
"2. Do not eat iPod Shuffle."
I have heard people describe it as "against God's will" to concieve a child for the purpose of using the baby as "medication" for another sick child. But surely it is even more wrong to deny an existing child the right to life, just because of some warped ideas about morality?
Morality has become an outdated concept. Scientific progress has meant that many new ideas, which were never conceived when society previously decided what was "moral", have now become immoral by default. And society's hang-ups over morality are preventing the human race from maximising its full potential. I find it disappointing that our moral guardians are deciding that human cloning is wrong and immoral, and I'll never get the chance to clone myself and live beyond my normal lifespan.
Morality and religion simply aren't relevant to the fast-changing modern world. They represent mankind's fear of change and threaten to keep the human race locked in the medieval era. If something is scientifically possible, then it should automatically be moral and good. Only the scientifically impossible things such as necromancy and worship of idols should be classed as immoral.
We should celebrate this medical innovation as a miracle of science which it clearly is, rather than berating it and questioning it on moral grounds.
As a firm believer in ethical science I can appreciate the life-saving opportunity presented by this technique whilst at the same time be concerned about the possible directions it is leading in. This treatment is on the borderline between "good" and "bad" science in that it requires the selection of a particular embryo based on a set of desired characteristics.
Sure, in this case the criteria were simple; that the child's tissue would match that of his sister. Nothing to worry about surely? No, but where does this lead on to? The selection of embryos for other characteristics? If it is alright to select for medical reasons, who is to say that it isn't alright to select for other reasons - intelligence, appearance, resistance to diseases...?
After all, these can all be "justified" by claiming they improve the quality of life of the unborn child.
There is a fine line between doing this for medical reasons and doing it for personal reasons. We need to make sure that this line is never crossed for the sake of the gene pool if nothing else - diversity is both good and required. But ethically, this is a step away from letting parents get rid of embryos that don't match up to their perfect child, and that is, in my book, murder justified by science without ethics.
With more stem cell research, recently allowed by the NIH, the public will soon be able (I guess 10 years or so) to generate embryonic stem cells from your own somatic cells, skin cells etc., and allow you to donate all kinds of stem cells not just bone marrow stem cells to yourself or others without a marrow tap.
Whoa....
no sig.