|
|
|
|
Lars_H
SFN Regular
Germany
630 Posts |
 Posted - 02/22/2002 : 12:13:25
|
Some time ago we had a discussion genetics, where the danger of creating human spare parts came up.
In Leeds the parents of a child with a are blood disorder have now gotten the Ok to customize their next child to save the live of the first.
The whole story here at the BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/health/newsid_1836000/1836523.stm
What do you think?
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2002 : 13:16:22 [Permalink]
|
I've yet to hear any explanation of why customizing a child is "wrong" or "unethical".
(Especially something as simple as choosing its sex. What the hell could possibly be objectionable about that?!)
I sometimes hear: "Only rich people will get to do it (at first)!" So what?
As long as the kid isn't in some way hurt by being "customized" (i.e. having to give up a kidney, leg, etc.) I see absolutely nothing wrong with it, and a whole lot of things that could be right.
------------
Sum Ergo Cogito
Edited by - tokyodreamer on 02/22/2002 13:17:21 |
 |
|
|
Lars_H
SFN Regular
Germany
630 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2002 : 14:59:02 [Permalink]
|
I don't have anything against the process itself.
If for example the parents have a higher probability of having a child with a genetic defect then the pre implantation screening is totally justified in my opinon. That is partially the case here.
The part that has me brothered is that they choose the embryo specifically to be compatible with it's older brother. They want to use the umbilicord as a source for a bonemarrow transplant, if I get this right.
It is not the method I am concerned abou but the motivation.I can undertand the parents and they say that they will love the new child and everything, but we only are a few steps away here from something potentially very bad.
|
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2002 : 15:06:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I've yet to hear any explanation of why customizing a child is "wrong" or "unethical".
(Especially something as simple as choosing its sex. What the hell could possibly be objectionable about that?!)
I sometimes hear: "Only rich people will get to do it (at first)!" So what?
As long as the kid isn't in some way hurt by being "customized" (i.e. having to give up a kidney, leg, etc.) I see absolutely nothing wrong with it, and a whole lot of things that could be right.
I tend to agree in principle TD. The hypothetical ethical conundrums, as I understand them, are based on the concerns that the lower- and middle-classes will have children that are born phenotypically inferior to begin with because they won't be able to afford the genetic manipulations that will be available to the rich. It would then be extremely hard to justify anti-discrimination laws against the manipulated kids because they would have actual advantages and not just perceived ones.
Laws of Thermodynamics:
1. You cannot win.
2. You cannot break even.
3. You cannot stop playing the game. |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2002 : 15:50:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
It is not the method I am concerned about, but the motivation.
I don't understand why motivation would be a consideration as long as the kid isn't in some way hurt by being "customized" (i.e. having to give up a kidney, leg, etc.).
They are having another kid. The technology allows them to manipulate it so that they can use the umbylical cord to save the life of another child.
They can:
a) Leave it up to chance and hope that there is a compatibility.
b) Make a change that in no way hurts the new kid, but insures the life of the first is saved.
Sounds like a no-brainer to me.
------------
Sum Ergo Cogito |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2002 : 15:54:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
The hypothetical ethical conundrums, as I understand them, are based on...
I understand what you're saying, but I can't imagine that anyone would think that "hypothetical ethical conundrums" about discrimination in the distant future would induce one tiny bit of hesitation in saving lives, and preventing genetic diseases and defects.
The advantages far outweigh the "what if's".
I haven't thought too terribly deep about this subject, however, so I'm open to be convinced otherwise. 
------------
Sum Ergo Cogito |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2002 : 16:10:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
as I understand them, are based on the concerns that the lower- and middle-classes will have children that are born phenotypically inferior to begin with because they won't be able to afford the genetic manipulations that will be available to the rich.
Some years back I was going out to lunch with some people a Doubleday in NYC when we passed Jackie Onassis in the hall. They told her we were going to 21's (before we saw her we were going to get pizza) and asked her to come along. While we were eating Brooke Astor spotted Jackie and joined us.
I've got news for you. The Rich already are different from us. We are already phenotypically inferior. Only now they do it by selective breeding.
Gawrd, Jackie was beautiful!
-------
The brain that was stolen from my laboratory was a criminal brain. Only evil will come from it. |
|
|
|
Lars_H
SFN Regular
Germany
630 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2002 : 16:57:45 [Permalink]
|
To Tokyodreamer
quote:
They are having another kid. The technology allows them to manipulate it so that they can use the umbylical cord to save the life of another child.
There exactly is the problem. They are having another kid. The question is. Would they have had another kid anyway or are they having a kid because of the possibility to save their other child.
I don't have any problem with the rich customizing their ofspring. The technology is not that usefull for anything but choosing the best out of a dozend random combinations or so. It would take several generations to make a distinct difference this way.
Infact the procedure is not that expansive. The procedure is attractive for high risk parents, who for example both carry a recessive gene for a defect and do not want to risk the 1 in 4 chance. I could imagine that in a few years and after a few law suits the methode is even covered under mediacl insurance. It is cheaper to pay for the arificial insermination and the selection then for a livelong care.
This could develop in odd direction concerning what parents consider a potential birth defect. But I am not really concerned about that now.
What scares me is that human a being is created here not for it's own sake but to save someone else live.
If you are rich and suffer from a similar problem as the child in the article, you can just have a donor made for order.
You just pay the sperm- and/or egg-donor (possibly relatives), the doctors, the surrogate mother, the ethic comission and put the child up for adoption after birth.
|
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2002 : 18:42:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Would they have had another kid anyway or are they having a kid because of the possibility to save their other child.
So the fear is that people who do this would love the child less or not take as good care of it?
------------
Sum Ergo Cogito |
|
|
|
Badger
Skeptic Friend
Canada
257 Posts |
Posted - 02/23/2002 : 13:00:17 [Permalink]
|
My take on this is that we evolved as social animals, a byproduct of which was advanced tool use. Tool use was advantageous to our survival.
So now we're using more complex tools to make sure more of our species survives. I don't see a problem.
With regard to there being 2 classes of people, those who can afford the new technology and those who can't, hasn't this arguement been used with many other things, only to discover that the price goes down to where everyone can afford it?
I'm stumblin through the parking lot of an invisible 7-eleven. ZZ-Top |
|
|
|
Lars_H
SFN Regular
Germany
630 Posts |
Posted - 02/23/2002 : 15:37:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
So the fear is that people who do this would love the child less or not take as good care of it?
Basically, yes.
I know that compared to other reasons to bring a child into this world being the byproduct of alifesaving medical treatment might not be that bad.
Growing up in the knowledge that you have been created to help save your brothers live certainly would not be worse then growing up knowing you were conceived by accident, as a old age pension scheme, in order to save a relationship or any of the other 'normal' reasons.
It just doesn't feel right to me. Maybee because it is new and once we have gotten used to it nobody will see anything strange in it.
|
|
|
|
Lisa
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 02/23/2002 : 17:38:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
It just doesn't feel right to me. Maybee because it is new and once we have gotten used to it nobody will see anything strange in it.
You're quite right, I think part of the uproar is the "newness" of it. Remember Louise Brown, the first "test tube baby", born in the UK? My goodness, what an uproar. You'd've thought the world was going to end. Now the whole concept barely elicits a yawn.
Lisa
If you're not living on the edge, you're taking up too much room. |
|
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
