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.
Gattaca
-- Mean People Suck
Can we make selection retroactive?
There's several people I'd like to retroactively select...
To put a witty saying into 120 characters, jst rmv ll th vwls.
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.
I can's see anything wrong with selecting for gestation the embryo which will turn into the healthiest human. This will result in a net gain in health for millions of real humans in future generations, at the expense of millions of potential (meaning "not") humans - the rejected embryos. Since the rejected embryos have no consciousness, and the real humans do, I think it's a worthwhile trade-off. If there was any evidence that the rejected embryos could feel pain or have any awareness of their situation, I'd go the other way. But as it is, it's a (bad pun alert) no-brainer.
My truck is like a series of tubes.
If you are going to do something with an embryo, you have crossed the line already and beyond that there aren't really any ethical questions, since it is already decided that the embryo has no intrinsic rights that need protecting. Any further regulation on the matter is just pandering to wine-and-cheese liberals.
Do it yourself, because no one else will do it yourself. [beta blockade 10-17 Feb]
That's the real issue, in my opinion where it is GROSSLY obvious that a defect will harm the child severely then we should. I really doubt our science (and scientists) are capable at present at deciding what is a 'defect' when no studies have been done and data is not available, since what one might consider a defect, may not be, or maybe tied to a whole host of other issues once development starts, after all if you're going to discard emybryos with percieved small 'defects', the error in judgement of what constitutes a defect is rather large.
If we coul we would monitor and control the growth and eliminate 'defects' during the whole term of a pregnancy or even as we grow throughout are life but this is just not feasable realistically, at some point an embryo is 'good enough', and I really don't think we have the knowledge at present to judge very accurately what constitutes a 'defect' at smaller levels without studies and long term data to back it up.
(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.
...Because you were so likely to accidentally get involved in IVF??
Warning: Apple/Nintendo fangirl. Likes her electronics cute & cuddly. May be rabid.
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.
The question isn't "should parents do this" - they will. The real dilemna will come when children with genetic problems start suing there obstetricians - or parents - for "wrongful birth" or "wrongful life".
"Dr. Whatisface was negligent in not compelling Mr. And Mrs. Doofus to take a genetic test prior to young Jimmy Doofus being born; Jimmy is under the average height for a male, which is obviously a genetic defect, and therefore the embryonic Jimmy should never have been implanted and brought to term. We therefor ask the court to find for the plaintiff and compell the defendant to support poor, short Jimmy for the rest of his life."
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
Everyone has different ideals of the "perfect" human, so allowing arbitrary selection -- even if it were affordable to everyone, which it wouldn't be -- won't eliminate diversity.
What it will do is reverse the trend of propagating serious genetic defects throughout the gene pool. Thanks to social ethics and medical technology, people with major non-adaptive genetic mutations -- degenerative diseases, blindness, deafness, obesity, heart defects, and yes, even way-below-average intelligence (to the degree that's determined by genetics) -- are no longer selected out of the gene pool as they would be in a less organized or less ethical society.
We have an opportunity to pick up where we forced nature to stop in designing better-adapted humans. We may have to do some serious engineering on human genetics in order for us as a species to survive in different environments with toxic materials, not enough oxygen, too much radiation, or other uncorrectable environmental difficulties. That could mean another planet, or Earth in the far-future. Whining about parents genetically testing their zygotes is ridiculous.
Isn't the generally accepted philosophy of being human that what really matters is thoughts and personality? Thoughts cannot be genetically selected. Personality has some genetic basis due to biochemistry in the brain and genetically-determined brain structure, but even there the core of personality is dictated by the environment and experience.
I imagine gay embryos will be the first in the trash can. In a generation or two, gays will be seen only in old movies or tv sitcoms like "Three's Company".
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
I have no problem with anyone who wants to sift through endless embryos until you find one that has the markers for mutant super-powers. After all, that's helping usher in the next stage of human evolution. Once you've discovered that, though, I don't think it's right to continue selecting based on the nature of those powers. Just let super-nature take its course. You should be proud just to have an X-Man running around your house, even if it is a crappy one like Dazzler.
The enemies of Democracy are
Comment removed based on user account deletion
''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.)
hear, hear!
Now if only we could agree on that pesky "human being ... created" part.
Conception != created. The cells may not split. The cells may not settle. The embryo may be aborted by the body long before it enters anything like a zygote state. And so forth. And so on.
The point was that people who may have signs of physical inferiority can have other advantages/abilities that dont show up on the radar. We will never know what people's minds turn out to be, even if at some futuristic stage we can spot biological signs of higher-than-average intelligence. I'm pretty sure stephen hawkins would have been evaluated as a complete "abort-case", a virtual disaster, if he was put through the system. He is just an example. There are many others who may be susceptible to some disease, but they only contract it later in life, after they have lived wonderful times and after they have done amazing things.
As for the hitler e.g, that is completely unrelated to my point as you now can see. Also, it's like walking into the street and randomly shooting children in the hope that probability distributions allow one of them to be a mass murderer. The reliance on the possibility of removing a person who "turns out" (very little to do with genetics) to be evil, in order to feel ok about denying many others a rewarding life, is just not cool.
As our knowledge of genetics inreases, eventually there will be choices like: This one might kill him by leukemia before he's 25, but if it doesn't it'll guarantee that he never has heart disease.
Some parents will opt for full out safety and take no risk at all. Their kids will turn out supremely average in all respects, dull.
Others will take every risk associated with every possibly beneficial gene and so opt for the chance at a super-kid that might inherit various diseases, but will also have a shot at brilliance.
There will be all levels of in-between choices as well.
In short, there will be no line.
Good judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from bad judgement.
- W. Wriston, former Citibank CEO
This article is definitely a troll... they all are... that's how they make money: by asking you what you think. Not such a bad thing, honestly, for you to tell them and let them make a sixpence from the ads. This is an important topic of conversation, as you obviously agree from your strong opinions.
:) don't get sick now...
Which I will now debunk. When will you realize that...
1. You were once a sperm too. Or do you think you didn't exist until mr sperm met mrs ova?
2. A sperm is not a plaything to be spat all over your keyboard. It is a living organism that happens to be the beginning stages of a human being, who would have grown up to have a family, friends, a real personality, who would experience love and life.
If you think it is OK to masturbate, I suggest you do some deep soul searching. If you believe in God, you better switch to catholicism, because otherwise you're just being a pansy and going for the religion that doesn't ask you not to masturbate.
I guess I got suckered into this... but I have strong opinions too. Obviously those aren't them... the real opinions follow
Aside from such formatting jokes, it really concerns me that you are thinking so narrowly. It's like all you care about is human life, and haven't considered the quality thereof. How many children do you suppose you'll have? 2, maybe 3? If your condom breaks and you impregnate your wife just as your last child is turning 18, what will you do? Have another child? Give it up for adoption? My point is that there is a certain number of children people want to have, and they're not likely to have more or less than that.
In fact it's really important that people don't have too many or too few kids, as the world has plenty of problems with population density already. Given that a person only wants two children, shouldn't they pick the healthiest, most likely to succeed embryos?
Finally since I'm feeling charitable, let me blur the lines for you a little more: how is a human life more valuable than, say, that of a cow? Or an ant? Or even a virus? It's not. In fact it's less valuable than a cow, when it's an embryo.
Sure, the embryo has the possibility of human life, and what could be more valuable than that? But if you're not willing to consider a cow as equally valuable to a human, how can you say that the embryo which dies after 27 years of pain is more valuable than the one that dies after 90 years of happiness?? Just because it came first? That makes no sense. Or perhaps it's because God's plan was for that baby to be born? Keep in mind, you can never change or go against God's plan, by definition.
Make no mistake: the number of kids I'm having isn't going to change. I'll have an abortion or a divorce if she wants more children than I can afford. (I think it's her body and her choice... so won't force an abortion... but my life is also my choice, and I reserve the right to leave. thank god i'm not christian...) So if you think I won't murder as many children as necessary to find the best ones, you're wrong. I'll kill 'em when they're six years old if they're going to be living a life of pain. There's simply no justification great enough to bring a disabled child who is going to live in pain into this world when you could have made a healthy one who can enjoy it in its stead.
Okay, if you're still with me, take a deep breath, because this next one is a doozy, and I'm probably going to lose you.
You say you feel sick because of something someone said here... so I have to tell you, it is because of cognitive dissonance - their ideas do not match with your ideology. You don't have the same basic assumptions they do (IE, most of us can't make reach so far as to think of an embryo the same way as a developed human... sorry... it's just too different.) And so you say you're sick... but actually, what you are is afraid. Yes, that feeling is fear... fear for your way of life, because you see so many people who think a different way.
There is an
Of course, not every handicapped child is the same, but I believe that my son is having a happy life dispite his handicaps. And in a sense, he also is a joy to us.
But his life did have a dramatic effect on our family life. My wife devoutes all her energy in taking care for him. As a result of this, her relationship with my now 13 year old daughter has been very poor. My wife also has been suffering from a burn-out and depressions. For many years my daughter has not been able to invite friends over to our house, because my wife could not handle the additional stress of an extra child in the house, while having to care for our son. It is my daughter who has been suffering far more than my son. For me too it has not been very easy. For many years our lives have been centered around caring for our son.
If you can choose between an embryo pre-disposed to colon cancer and one that is not, why would you choose the embryo likely to fall ill?
In vitro fertilization apparently correlates with an increased rate of birth defects --- the very least a parent going this route should do is eliminate genetic illnesses. Better still would be to eliminate the problems caused by the procedure itself.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/01/24/MN35978.DTL
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/health/jan-june02/testtube-3-6.html
How about all of the embryos that for one reason or another are destroyed by the body itself? Should we be trying to protect those as well? Should we spend money on protecting the "unborn" instead of say, cancer research?
If either of your 2 cases were greater than .001 % of the abortions in the world, you would have a point. But because of a few rare cases, all pre-born humans get no protections?
Look up spontaneous abortion. It's a lot more common than the medically-induced kind. Some estimates put about half of all "pre-born" humans as being discarded in this way, usually because of chromosomal abnormalities.
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.