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."
----
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'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.
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"?
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.