Eugenics

usakat

Hello All,

This morning Today Show featured a BBC story, which I discovered was old news after a little research, about a couple who utilized genetic testing of embryos to avoid giving birth to a child with the BRAC 1 and BRAC 2 gene mutation (predisposition for breast cancer, similar to HNPCC or FAP). Apparently the father was gene positive for BRAC 1 or BRAC 2, and both his mother and grandmother had breast cancer. He did not want to pass the mutation on to his children, therefore he and his wife elected to have their children conceived by in vitro fertilization and then have the embryos tested for the gene mutation prior to uterine implantation.

The couple had several in vitro embryos that were tested and of those a couple of the embryos did test positive for the gene mutation. These gene mutation positive embryos were then not selected for implantation - not selected to be born.

I have HNPCC - the genetic form of colon cancer. I inherited HNPCC from my mother (a four time cancer survivor), who inherited it from her mother (my grandmother died of breast cancer). In spite of having HNPCC, having had cancer, and living with the understanding that I'm very likely to have future cancers, I'm glad I was born.

My uncle is 73 and is also positive for the HNPCC gene mutation, however he has NEVER had cancer. My cousin tested negative, but died of breast cancer. A positive or negative test result does not necessarily mean a person will or will not get cancer in some form.

With that said, herein lies the point of my post, does or can eugenics play an important role in cancer prevention, and more importantly, is it ethical? I can't help but think about that Build A Bear Workshop store you see in all the shopping malls across America where kids create their perfect furry friend and wonder if we're moving towards building never to be found perfect children in a similar fashion. Am I an imperfect child because I had cancer? Heck, NO!

Is this a situation where we are blinded by science?

Unknown

You raise some very important questions and I do not have answers, only opinions.
And my opinion is that even if science could make possible the creation of a 'perfect' person who had no dispositions for anything harmful, I would not want to be that person.
The challenges I have faced in my life (cancer being only one of them)have made me into someone I respect. And I would not trade that self-respect for a cancer free life even on my worst days.

cabbott

A saying comes to mind: A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. I can't say I would genetically select a child on purpose to have cancer, but destroying a life because they might develop cancer seems wrong too. I think maybe this is one of those decisions we just don't know enough to make and ought to leave in the hands of God.

inkblot

cabbott said:

A saying comes to mind: A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. I can't say I would genetically select a child on purpose to have cancer, but destroying a life because they might develop cancer seems wrong too. I think maybe this is one of those decisions we just don't know enough to make and ought to leave in the hands of God.

Hey guys,

It's a very interesting world in which we live, to say the least. Newer options are always going to be on the horizon and for some people they will have application and for others, they will not.

I don't belive it's anyone's responsibility to decide what is "right" or "appropriate" for someone else, concerning medical/science issues. I believe we each must have the absolute right to choose for ourselves, from what is available. I don't believe there ever can, or should be, cookie cutter answers to such questions. If we're going to open this can of worms, then we must do more than peek and snap the lid shut. We must throw off the lid and empty out the worms and thoroughly examine them.

My reasoning is that we each have differing belief systems and as to the question, when does life begin?...science has yet to clarify that answer. I recall our legislators spending much time, effort and resources, trying to answer that question, in relation to pending abortion letislation, some years ago, and while a "legal" answer was finally arrived at, no single definition (answer) has yet emerged. Seems that different scientists have different answers, so how can we, the masses, hope to answer that question? So, is it "taking a life" to destroy an embryo? Each person must answer for him/herself. Depends upon whom you ask. If one does not believe that an embryo represents "life", then they would likely answer no. It's a tangled web of science, emotions, belief systems, ethics and just plain old personal preference. I don't believe there are any "right" or "wrong" answers which will fit/suit everyone.

My take: Hands down, I would NOT "select" anyone to have any disease or condition. Ever. If I had the opportunity to prevent it, then hands down, I would do so. Yet I would not go to any and all lengths to achieve prevention, as I could only take action within the confines of my personal principles, values and/or belief system. And that pretty much answers the question for me. And it pretty much answers it for everyone else as well, as they would act based upon who they are and what they believe. Yet, I would not like having someone else make such a weighty decision for me either. When I say "me", I refer to the living, breathing me that is alive and here today. On the other hand, if I never existed, then I could not possibly be concerned with the issue of making such a decision. To try to decide how I would vote, if I never existed, is ridiculous to me and not a feasible point to even discuss. Before I was, I was not. Now that I am, it is not possible to have any concept of what it would be like "not to have existed".

I suppose that if I had a choice and I carried some known, dreadful gene(s) which I could pass on to my offspring, then I think that yes, I would choose not to pass those genes on. What is the point of science if we cannot put it to the use of "prevention"? Curing, after the fact, is a tough road in so many cases. In other cases, such as severe mental retardation, severe physical deformities, etc., there are no cures and very little treatment that is effective. What is the level of suffering? Do the treatments hurt? Is the person happy? Is the person able to think or know whether or not they are content? Remember the Terry Schiavo case? Is it responsible, ethical and/or "right" to allow such scenario's when/if they were preventable? I'd choose to prevent my offspring being born with such disorders, if I had the choice and if the manner of prevention was acceptable to me.

If we can remember that "science" is responsible for many of our mental and physical issues of today, then it makes perfect sense that science must also hold the answers to addressing those issues. Our air, food, water, soil, clothing, household furnishings...all hold many toxic chemicals, not conducive to good health. Many of these toxins are implicated in everything from various psychoses, ADHD, learning disablilites, criminal conduct, cancers, MS, diabetes, heart and lung diseases...you name it. If you want some interesting reading, here's a website with some pretty amazing test results on the blood or newborn babies in America and the number of toxins found in their blood. Did not science give us the technologies which produces these toxins? Who ensures that they are only used in a "safe" manner? Why does the watch dog sleep, when it should be "watching"? Does our government not ignore and/or fail to address tons of dangerous chemicals we all consume in one fashion or another, day in and day out? Not surprising then that we're going to see even greater numbers of diseases and conditions effecting all of us in the future, including our babies and young children. Go to: http://archive.ewg.org/reports/bodyburden2/

It's easy to see that decisions are made regarding our health and the health of future generations every day, through mere negligence, driven by profit/greed. It's also easy to see that "safety" decisions are not being made in the best interests of our health and well being. So, what's more ethical or less ethical? Prevention measures being made available? Or the status quo of continuing to poison/pollute our lovely little planet and every living thing within it? As individuals, the opportunity to try and prevent some of those consequences in our off spring, by selective breeding, as it were, for certain genetic threats, doesn't seem to me so unethical, immoral or "wrong" really.

It is not my business to judge for others what is right or what is wrong. It is my business to live the best life I can and to educate myself so that I can (ideally) make the best choices for myself when necessary. In the interim, we all do the best we can. I buy organic, eat out seldom, reduce, reuse and recyle. Everything I drink/serve is filtered. I take care to conserve water and electricity and am not interested in the least in conspicious consumption practices. My needs are simple, as is my lifestyle. Still, all that I do is not enough. As a society, if we're going to continue breathing in, drinking down, eating, playing in and rubbing up against toxins every day, then yes, we're going to become sicker and sicker and we're going to experience genetic mutations, which we will pass on to our offspring and they, in turn will pass on to theirs. If we're going to continue our love affair with plastics and other items which lounge in landfills for hundreds of years, with little to no breakdown, if we're going to continue to drive gas guzzling vehicles, rendering us forever dependent upon dwindling fossil fuels, then yes, we're going to choke on carbon dioxide. We're going to suffer dreadfully from the levels of mercury spewed out by coal fired power plants. We're going to posion the land via inadequate "storage facilities" for our spent nuclear waste. Research the "Hanford Facility" in Washington State if you want to help treat yourself to some pathways to nightmares. And if that isn't enough, research the fact that our foods no longer contain nearly as much nourishment as they once did. Reason? Our soil is becoming depleted of the precious vitamins/minerals which make our food nutritious for us. I believe it was last year that South Korea was working on striking a bargain with North Korea, in which they wanted to grow cucumbers and other veggies on North Korean soil, as their own previously fertile soils were depleted/spent. What does all this tell us? For whom does the bell toll? Clearly it tolls for us all. There are so many life and death issues facing us and they all don't hinge on when life begins. I happen to think it's also quite important, how a life is lived.

Be well...

Love, light & laughter,
Ink