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."
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?
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...
----
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
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
Say it with me, "Geneticaly-Designed Placenta Soup." Yummy.
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.
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.
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"?
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."
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.