caringiscreepy on 6/11/2006 at 12:40
Quote Posted by Marecki
I'd say you are wrong here. On one hand, if gene therapy gets cracked, this kind of thing
would be curable;
there in lies the problem, gene therapy isn't going to get "cracked" any time soon, and in reality its ability to solve genetic disorders is likely to be very limited. Its more into the realms of stem cells looking at solving deleterious genetic mutations, and that might be a whole other thread!
And to add to the whole natural selection discussion, deleterious mutations can be maintained in human populations because of heterozygote advantage, eg sickle cell anemia and cystic fibrosis. The more serious conditions that result in early death tend to be new mutations as the carriers rarely reach reproductive age, and if they do may not be fit in reproductive terms.
Convict on 6/11/2006 at 14:53
Quote Posted by Renegen
Considered a lot of women marry the best provider I think natural selection is present in our society, it's a touchy subject for sure.
Actually we practice reverse natural selection - the more successful you are the less children you have. Having said that in the old days (when they did have natural selection) physical size might have been important for passing on genes (e.g. the guys who survived battles bred and they were probably larger) whereas nowdays intelligence might be a trait that helps success in life. So even if we were to practise natural selection nowdays, what might be positive now is useless in 500 years time.
BEAR on 6/11/2006 at 15:47
Quote Posted by TheGreatGodPan
My general rule of thumb in these kinds of matters is to consider whether I would be willing to kill the person in that situation. A person who committed a capital crime? Yup, so there's the death penalty. A suffering person who wanted me to help them end it all? Yup, so there's assisted suicide, or euthanasia if they had told me in advance the circumstances in which they wouldn't want to live anymore. A birth defect? I'll stop there. People can live lives with disabilities that may not be as great as they would otherwise be, but whether or not it is better than no life at all is a decision I'd have to leave up to them. So they'd have to be really, really screwed up in a sort of non-viable sense.
There's no escaping natural selection (altough Darwin distinguished between natural selection as simple survival and sexual selection for reproduction). The interaction of others when it comes to evolution is why game theory is often used in evolutionary theorizing. Humans have evolved to a point where children, no matter how lacking in defect, simply cannot survive if abandoned by their mothers and not taken care of by someone else. Modern medicine is part of our environment, and as such selection for reacting well to medicine is natural selection. Perhaps you don't like the results of natural selection, but it doesn't select for "good" or "progress", so the results are selection nevertheless.
Wow, how disgustingly presumptuous.
Jennie&Tim on 6/11/2006 at 16:02
Birth defects have a whole spectrum from harmless like webbed toes to unsurvivable pain like harlequin babies. I'd have to believe that it was kinder to kill the baby, than to let it live. Defects like Judith had, which was deadly but completely fixed by surgery, would not qualify at all; despite the expense. Neither, in my opinion, would stuff like MS or Huntingdons; because the child could come to maturity and make that choice for themselves. I would, however, allow, nay encourage, PGD for such adult-onset diseases because I don't think an embryo and a full-term baby morally equivilent. Defects that would qualify in my opinion would be stuff like the neurodegenerative disease my husband's second cousin's child had, which killed her after a life of pain, when she was nine months old. I also think the parents, as a general rule, are the best people to make that choice for the baby.
I'd also say that humans use lots of technology to make themselves fitter as a species, and medical interventions are only one such. I'm not less qualified to survive in this world because my eyes are minus eight diopter; though in paleolithic times I'd have been lunch for a sabre-tooth.
Marecki on 6/11/2006 at 20:12
Also, I think quite a few people have got a wrong impression here. If a person is unconscious and requires life support merely to stay alive, his/her legal guardians can already decide to shut those things down... There is nothing shocking about that; what to me feels striking in the article is that it seems to suggest doctors want to be able to make thes decisions without consulting parents. If it goes through, that eventual "ISO standard for a new-born baby" thing suggested earlier on in this thread may actually turn out to be not as ridiculous as it seems at the first glance...
TheGreatGodPan on 6/11/2006 at 22:14
Quote Posted by BEAR
Wow, how disgustingly presumptuous.
Elaborate.
Renegen on 7/11/2006 at 02:54
Quote Posted by Convict
Actually we practice reverse natural selection - the more successful you are the less children you have. Having said that in the old days (when they did have natural selection) physical size might have been important for passing on genes (e.g. the guys who survived battles bred and they were probably larger) whereas nowdays intelligence might be a trait that helps success in life. So even if we were to practise natural selection nowdays, what might be positive now is useless in 500 years time.
Care to elaborate? Natural selection is just a way to favor some traits over others, this case it was not physical size or intelligence, it was the ability to provide for the mother's children. And what's this reverse natural selection? What does that even mean?
Thief13x on 7/11/2006 at 03:47
Quote Posted by Strontium Dog
Babies who are blind, deaf and dumb, or babies with half a spine, or babies with no limbs and a barely functioning brain is more what we're talking about here.
Maybe now but not for long. My parents were told by the doctor to get an abortion after they discovered a few months into the pregnancy that my soon to be little sister had a 70% chance of moderate retardation. She's 11 years old now and is one of the smartest kids in her grade with, I need not mention that 70% chance or not, the doctors were 100% wrong. Now try telling me that i'm just arguing a slippery slope.
Swiss Mercenary on 7/11/2006 at 03:54
Quote Posted by Thief13x
70% chance of moderate retardation
Are you sure they weren't talking about you?
