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?"
Anyone not involved should mind their own business? I agree with that. Government religion you listening? Hey! Religion, get your ass back here! Don't you walk away!!
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.
My argument against would be that folks that're "disabled" like me wouldn't have a chance to contribute to society as a whole....
In short, Beethoven. ;)
Don't tell me to get a life. I'm a gamer; I have LOTS of lives!
No kid of mine would use code font for paragraph text.
Modding Trolls +1 inciteful since 1999
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!
This technique could allow selecting for 1/2 sickle cell in Africa though, no longer will 25% of their children be SOL one way and another 25% SOL the other way.
Anyone not involved should mind their own business? I agree with that. Government religion you listening? Hey! Religion, get your ass back here! Don't you walk away!!
So, if a cop sees someone beating the shit out of you, should he mind his own business? Wait, before you answer, that cop is part of the government and is "not involved" in your ass getting kicked. Should he mind his own business. Of course not! Why? Because it's the governments job to protect its innocent citizens, and therefor not only has the right, but the DUTY to step in. That's a given. The unborn are also innocent. That's also a given. Now the question we need to be asking in this situation is not, "should the government do anything" but "when is human life human?"
Now, the GP stated that he couldn't give a shit about a clump a cells. Well, isn't he just a clump of cells? If his mother decided to have an abortion at this stage and started chasing him with a vacuum cleaner, should the police (or CPS) turn a blind eye? After all, he is just a clump of cells.
So, whether or not government should protect you is not a matter of religion. When is human life HUMAN is where religion steps in.
IMHO, if a DNA test says its human, then it's human and religion has nothing to do with it. No one should be allowed to kill or experiment on him/her without his/her permission.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
I have a son who was born with birth defects that affected his brain in early development. I love my son dearly, and would gladly give my life to be able to go back and fix his problems so he doesn't have to go through life like that. The poor kids only 8 years old, but has been receiving 30 hours of special ed assistance for 5 years now and barely graduated 2nd grade. I would not wish that upon the most vile scum of the planet. Death would have been kinder.
Modding Trolls +1 inciteful since 1999
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
How so? Beethoven's deafness had an adult onset, and it's now believed to have been due to lead poisoning, not a genetic cause. I don't think there's anyone who doesn't have a genetic propensity to heavy metal poisoning. Although some people may be more sensitive than others, I wouldn't call it a genetic disorder.
Now if you had talked about Edison's or A.G. Bell's dyslexia, you might have had a better point. But even so, dyslexia's a disability that, properly diagnosed, can be worked around. Still it does raise a good point which is, what positive traits with disability co-factors might we eliminate if we try to eliminate disabilities. The best example of that is how the genetic traits for thalassemia and sickle-cell anemia also provide limited protection against malaria
"Malaria's not a problem for me, I live and have evolved for northern latitude where the mosquitoes and malaria are less prevalent", you might say. Ah, but what happens when you get something like Global Warming combined with air travel increasing the territory for malaria? Could genetic defect selection be wiping out currently unnecessary gene variations that could prove critical in another few hundred years?
As usual, SF touched on some of these issues already decades ago, starting with a Heinlein novella called "Beyond this Horizon".
Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
Let's say that instead of someone beating the shit out of me, they're coming at me with a knife -- except that they're a surgeon performing a medical procedure I opted into. Is it still the police officer's job to "protect" me from something I'm doing by choice?
Of course not. But then, embryos certainly don't opt into the euphemistic "medical procedure" being performed upon them.
So it should be illegal for me to get a tumor cut out of me -- because a DNA test would show that it's human?
A tumor is a piece of a human, not a complete one- cut yours out, you live on, the rest of your cells surviving the loss.
An embryo, on the other hand, is the entire entity. Kill it, and an individual dies.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
How about the various form of twinning that occur, which in rare cases leads to one twin actually becoming part of the other, and needing to be removed so that the fully grown twin can live? That other twin (which cannot survive in any scenario) is human, and it is its own entity.
Here's another case: A woman who with a serious medical condition becomes pregnant. She cannot survive to bring the child to term, and the child will not survive. Can an abortion be performed then? Saving one life instead of killing both of them?
Also, keep in mind, especially in the second case, it is rarely a 100% certainty. There is always a small chance that both will live. Would you require that a woman with a 1% chance of surviving take that chance? Why is that your decision to make? Why is that anyone's choice but her own?
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?
Those embryos are just as much "potential individuals" as all of the children that don't exist because not every fertile human is continually having sex.
The right to protest the State is more sacred than the State.
Keep in mind here we are talking about in vitro fertilization. In that process it is typical to create several fertilized eggs and implant one. The reset are disposed of. That being the case, why does it matter if genetic tests are used to determine which fertilized egg should be implanted? I don't see any moral dilemma here.
As an aside it is so absolutely ridiculous to give everything with human DNA the same rights as a full human that it isn't even worth discussing. If you can't see the folly of giving a lost tooth the same rights as a child you are beyond reason.
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
''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.)
How about the various form of twinning that occur, which in rare cases leads to one twin actually becoming part of the other, and needing to be removed so that the fully grown twin can live? That other twin (which cannot survive in any scenario) is human, and it is its own entity
There are two entirely different scenarios being posed. In the situation above, you state that there are two human lives at risk - how do you balance between them. It's the same as saying "You're wife and child are dangling from different cliffs. Both could fall at any moment. You have time to save one - which do you choose?" It's a moral dilemma, a no-win situation - whichever way you choose, a human dies, and your choice will be based upon this knowledge.
This is entirely different to "There is one human life, and a bunch of cells. We can do whatever we like to the bunch of cells, because we don't define it as human". In this case, there is no weighing of the life of the embryo, no moral decision - it's considered junk, and treated like it.
At the risk of sounding flamebait-y, this is the same proposition raised during the time when black slavery was acceptable. If you define "human" in such a way that it excludes blacks, then slavery isn't any more wrong than keeping hunting dogs. They're just animals after all. Whenever you start splitting hairs over what is and isn't human, you begin toeing a very fine line.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face