Forums > Social Discussion > Pre-Implantation Diagnostics and the value of life

Posted: 7th Jul 2010
I've never heard of this practice in fertility practices and it scanning thing is what creeps me out along with some natural selection issues. I believe abortion and euthanasia have their places in society, but in this instance the defiance of nature is alarming and it's potential.

None the less, I'd need to know what genetic effects are involved before having a solid opinion about this subject as there are so many...

~Rock on!~

"As the pattern gets more intricate and subtle, being swept along is no longer enough"-Waking Life

(All you RLers this is epitome_of_lame *waves hello*)

Posted: 7th Jul 2010
Now as for me - I did work in a school for (and with) handicapped children and while I really found them to be adorable characters just like any other child on this planet I have to say that it was extremely straining on parents and helpers.

As for my part I wouldn't see anything wrong with scanning a fetus for genetic defuncts and ending the pregnancy (in very early stages) if the risk of this unborn life to develop a serious disease in later life are very high.

This is not as much about financial aspects, the hardship the parents have to face for the rest of their life - it is more about the children (and later adults) who have no chance of leading a "normal" life and exploring this life without serious support from medication and technical equipment.

I feel that most of them are trapped inside their body - no question that they adapt and enjoy life. But if there is a humanitarian way of scanning and diagnostics in a very early stage of human development then I'm all for it.

I certainly would never support scanning for physical preferences "I'd like my child to be tall, blond, male, blue eyed, IQ >150 and playing the piano as well as speaking 60 languages"...

A "Gattaca-Scenario" would be absolutely horrible.

the best smiles are the ones you lead to

Posted: 7th Jul 2010
Reasons for "abortion" would include (at least presently in the UK)

Breast Cancer (50-80% predisposition)
Mucoviscidosis (Cystic Fibrosis) - affecting the lungs
Brocke Mutation
early developing form of Alzheimers

possibly in the future for

Huntington
Parkinson
T-Sachs

And in one case parents did screen and select a sibling who later donated spinal marrow for his elder brother, saving his life.

I hope I'm not too provocative, when stating that natural selection doesn't necessarily apply to the human race anymore. Which is one reason parts of this planet are facing overpopulation. Technical advance has put us in a place where disease, predators, climate or availability of natural resources are just not effectively balancing the human population.

the best smiles are the ones you lead to

Posted: 7th Jul 2010
Now, it seems we need to be a bit careful to distinguish between the different situations here :

If I read you correctly TOm, you say it is legal to do this scan BEFORE implantation. i.e. we are talking about ex-utero conception which is usually only performed for people having pregnancy issues.

In this case I would fully support improving the odds of a healthy baby as much as possible - this procedure is totally not natural, painful and mentally hard so to go through it all and then have a child that is a burden is a double heartache.

Tom you're right about the burden these people place on not only the parents and helpers but the state - there is an extremely high cost supporting the medical issues and extra facilities they need. My wife currently is teacher aide for handicapped teens and previously helped out with cleaning a handicap guys home. Huge burden - no matter how likeable they are individually.

Back to the question - yes definitely in that case.

The case for "normal" pregnacies though I would have to say is more complicated. I am tempted to say that to screen for the same kind of handicaps is still ok but as Tom says "normal" pregnacies are more likely to take care of themselves so the problem is that in-utero testing is more likely to be used for other things and the line becomes very blurred about what it is they are looking for and also how you deal with what you find is much more invasive - in the case of the ex-utero test you simply do not implant anything you find a problem with, whereas in-utero test case you have to interfere with the mother in some way to resolve any "problems". This I think is where you cross the line and I think it is much safer to say "not ok".

As technology improves even more though it is probable that such conditions could be reversed or otherwise "fixed" to produce a "normal" healthy baby so at some point we would have to say well that's ok, and then you have to realise that there has to be some experimentation on real people to get to that point, so it's a real tricky question that one.

And let me finish by saying that this is (hopefully!) the logical, emotionless view - as soon as you bring in the factors of different religious beliefs into the mix you have a totally different set of arguments again.

Another interesting topic FT!

Written by: Doc Lightning talking about Marmite in Kichi's Intro thread

I have several large jars of the stuff. I actually like it... a little. And don't tell anyone I admitted to it.

Posted: 7th Jul 2010
George the parents in question had no pregnancy issues but

a) the mother herself had a genetic predisposition for breast cancer (50-80%) inherited by the female line of her family and
b) the parents had a child with a severe blood disease, after scanning, "implanting", giving birth and raising the other sibling, the first born was saved.

Germany now approved of scanning before implantation in certain cases. It is already legal in the UK. In the US you can even scan a fetus for physical/ intellectual preferences (before implantation) and make a selection (tom my current information, please correct me if I'm wrong.

The procedure of "natural selection" btw is also done in the mothers womb by the mothers natural organism... but not always successful, which is one reason why we have handicapped children.

Another reason - and here it gets completely philosophical - imho - is that we do have the means to support this form of life. Handicapped children often are quite gifted (speaking of autism for example, or look at Mr. Super-Genius Hawkins or many incredible artists with mind-rocking diseases including epilepsy, manic depression, etc.). Only because we don't understand the specific conditions (yet) doesn't mean that it's not a life worth living.

I do understand the sentiment of religious aspects in this case. Some people believe that human life starts at the time of conception, that this life needs to be protected by all means and that the rights of a child goes beyond that of their "host".

I can find arguments and definitely compassion for this way of thinking (even though my personal philosophy goes more along the lines of the body being a vessel and a soul only temporarily being bound to it).

If the society as such would care for circumstances under which the burden is lifted from the mothers or the families shoulders I could side this line of argumentation even more.

Most of these children would most likely not survive in nature or without technical support. They still go through a tremendous amount of suffering despite medication and assistance.

Thanks for your participation.

the best smiles are the ones you lead to

Posted: 9th Jul 2010
Now an argument against PID...

If Nick Vuicic' condition were genetical - and he was 'under PID'... his life would have been completely different

the best smiles are the ones you lead to

Posted: 11th Jul 2010
I agree with scanning a fetus before hand.

I was going to have to write an essay on this, about how sometimes deaf people would PREFER a deaf child. Discuss the moral implications blah blah but then they changed the topic about obese children.

I have kinda far out views - i.e. abortion up to birth etc. I don't believe in a soul and hence this arbitrary 20 weeks that the government puts in place.

I donated my eggs to a couple. My grandmother had Parkinsons. If there was a test/scan for this, I would completely support them scanning my eggs prior to implantation to make sure they got the healthiest child possible.

Posted: 11th Jul 2010
Originally Posted By: FireTomNow as for me - I did work in a school for (and with) handicapped children and while I really found them to be adorable characters just like any other child on this planet I have to say that it was extremely straining on parents and helpers.

Then isnt the problem with the parents and helpers? perhaps we should put them out of their misery instead?(VERY TOUNGUE IN CHEEK)

I was a develepmental officer for a day options provider for 7 years. Working with the very people that this 'selective breeding' will kill gives me the opinion that they deserve a chance at life. THe strain on guardians needs to be alleived in other ways, not by throwing out the 'worthless' children.

Quote:
I feel that most of them are trapped inside their body - no question that they adapt and enjoy life. But if there is a humanitarian way of scanning and diagnostics in a very early stage of human development then I'm all for it.
How is it humanitarian to put down children? Do they get a say in this? Perhaps we should kill all the homeless people because I feel sorry for them trapped out in the elements?


Quote:
A "Gattaca-Scenario" would be absolutely horrible. but make a pretty good movie.

sticks and stones my break my bones, but ski patrol will save me.

Posted: 11th Jul 2010
devils advocate? or believing in the immortal soul entering the body at the time of conception (+2weeks) and having this one chance only to incarnate?

Only trying to evaluate not to belittle. It's important for me to know which alley you are taking here.

the best smiles are the ones you lead to

Posted: 11th Jul 2010
A lot of advocate, but having said that I do believe a baby is a person from the get go.

I think there is the other side of the argument that hasn't been touched yet, so I thought I would come out swinging

I think this debate hinges on 3 main moral questions:

What is the value of a human life?
At what point is a person a "person"?
Is there any rights or responsibility we hold to that person?

I mean, ask any one of these people that suffer if they would rather have been aborted, and chances are there are going to be a lot that say no. Who are we to deny these people the chance for a life.

We are talking about giving and taking life on our terms, not on theirs and I think that blows.

sticks and stones my break my bones, but ski patrol will save me.

Posted: 11th Jul 2010
see there are very basic philosophies colliding (btw: thanks for participating)

I couldn't value a human life. I posted the vid of Nick Vuicic and I believe he is one of the most adorable people I've seen in my life. As I said I worked with handicapped children and they are that - children first of all.

Not sure what you mean "when is a person a person"? At conception, 2 weeks, 14th week, as a child, at 18 years? I'd say we do hold responsibility for every person, fetus, baby, child, teen, twen, adult, senior... and I've certainly went through phases where I couldn't appreciate the gift of life, have seen a couple of others. People kill people, become junkies, commit suicide, beg for euthanasia.. all facets of life are being reflected. This is not about "handicapped" vs "normal"

To me questions are: does the rights of children go beyond that of the mother or parents? What is society doing to support families and whether or not healthcare is available.

Quite easy to demand a woman to bear a child and raise it but neither having social welfare nor proper health care...

But yes, it's true - we're discussing about other (unborn) people loosing their opportunity/ chance to live. It sounds awfully cold, dunnit?

the best smiles are the ones you lead to