Slashdot Mirror
Where To Draw the Line With Embryo Selection?
Tjeerd writes "There is currently a discussion going on in the Netherlands about embryo selection. The process means that when using in vitro fertilization, you can check what kind of genetic defects will definitely become activated during life. When embryos with those defects are identified, they can be avoided or destroyed. The next step the government is considering is to make it possible to select against genetic defects which might become active in life, such as breast and colon cancer. Of course, this is a very difficult discussion; where do you start, and where do you end? People are worrying that there is no real limit, and that you could potentially check for every genetic defect. I think if you're in a situation where you or your family have genetic defects, you surely want to check whether your children would have them too. What does the Slashdot community think about this?"
Well I am not Christian, and certainly not Catholic. I have no concern, or consideration for a clump of cells.
Furthermore, I have a Penis. According to all the junkmail I get, it is a humiliatingly small penis that all the women laugh at hysterically, but the point is that I am a Man.
I don't think men should have any business telling a women what to do with their bodies, certainly not based on faith either.
That being said, if you could choose the genetic make-up of your children and spare them any diseases or malformations I would be hard pressed to form an argument against it. Especially, since I would want the same for my children.
So I understandably have a hard time agreeing that government could declare a position either way on this. They should just be silent and mind their own business.
A weakness is not always a weakness.
Consider the old example that gets trotted out, time and time again: sickle cell anaemia. In the US, Australia, England, Canada, etc., it's a weakness, and is rare. But in Africa, it turns out that if you have one normal gene acting in tandem with one sickle cell anaemia gene (remember that genes always operate in pairs), you are more resistant to the effects of malaria.
Two sickle cell genes, and you're in trouble. One, and if malaria is prevalent, you're actually better off (but if it's not, you're slightly worse off.)
So just because a given gene variant is a weakness here and now in our society doesn't necessarily mean it's a bad thing overall. We simply don't know enough to judge the bigger picture in the general case.
Except you're not. With the current technology you are selecting out embryos which carry single nucleotide polymorphisms which are associated with certain deleterious traits. You are not selecting for "healthy", you are selecting for "not diseased" and not even that, just "less likelihood of being diseased" (likelihood depends on the specific trait).
The problem here is you don't really know what else you are selecting for or against. Again, in most cases, you aren't testing for the deleterious gene(s) itselft, you're using a proxy marker. Lots of unknowns here. I'm not sure I would be embracing this technology just yet.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
(1) Either it works or it doesn't, for improving offspring.
(2) Lots of people won't be able to afford embryo selection, so humans will continue to explore both options.
I don't see a problem.
If most of the embryos created in the process are going to be destroyed anyway, you might as well select for good health. If you have a problem with that, you likely have a problem with that kind of fertility treatment in general.
This issue presented HERE is the ethics involved in picking and choosing which embryos to implant rather than choosing at random, which would most closely (as far as we know) mimic the random selection of an egg to release and a sperm to make it to the egg. Totally different issue, with totally different ramifications - like the evolutionary path of our species. (You could argue that legalizing abortion also affects our evolutionary path b/c certain populations are now less likely to give birth - but the fact is that abortions happen whether they're legal or not. Genetic engineering of this sort is likely to be extremely rare if illegal.)
Warning: Apple/Nintendo fangirl. Likes her electronics cute & cuddly. May be rabid.
''What if you were aborted because you have a "defect"? That would have sucked huh?''
That question can't be answered because it rests on a logical fallacy.
If you were aborted, you would never have existed. If you never existed, you would never have been in a position to contemplate the question.
The question plays on emotions of those who are already alive, people who have lived some life already - be it geriatrics with full lives, middle-aged, the young, kids or even newborns / their family.
This is about IVF embryo selection. A selection is already made. As we cannot foretell the lives that any child will lead, any question of "well what if this embryo that is certain to die of young age is the next Einstein!?" becomes moot as you could ask the very same question of the embryo in the 'next tube over' determined to -not- have the same disorder.
Once you realize that, then making the choice between the two is easy. Making the choice to make that choice in the first place may remain the hard part, for some.
Of course, given the choice and not taking the choice, then 16 years down the road realizing that, yep, your kid's dead because indeed he was certain to die at young age, might make you ponder not having made that choice. Or you could just accept that that's how life goes and be thankful for the 16 years you did have with the kid.
Similarly, let's say the 'healthy' one was chosen and turns out it ends up stillborn. You might wonder about the choice you made there, then, as well.
That's the fun thing about all of this - they're highly personal decisions and everybody has to live with that decision either which way.
That's also where government regulation comes into play, imho. If everything becomes a choice then this puts undue stress on the (hopeful) parents-to-be. That's also in part why the Dutch government currently is going with a case-by-case scenario - so selecting by "blue eyes, blonde hair" as some proposed is right out. Life-threatening disorders, predispositions, etc. are the bits being looked at - on a case-by-case scenario. I say in part, because the other part is just plainly the conservative religious party going "zomg! playing god!!!" and threatening to let the government collapse over the issue if they didn't get their way. (They're a minority party but together with two bigger parties just barely make the ruling majority; so if they go, the entire thing goes.)
Some people have more cells than others. I don't think it's fair to try to define how human someone is by the number of cells they have.
I would say that the right to life is more fundamental than the right to be irresponsible (if you aren't alive all of your other rights are meaningless). You can always chose adoption. I know it might be inconvenient, but I don't think that's a good reason kill someone.