SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the Kwisatz-Haderach-breeding-program dept.
GungnirSniper writes:
The US Food and Drug Administration is holding hearings to help determine if they should allow oocyte modification of mitochondrial DNA, which could prevent hereditary diseases that cause issues, such as such as seizures and blindness, from being passed on by mothers. In layman's terms, this "three-parent IVF" would allow the mitochondrial DNA of an unaffected woman to replace that of the mother while keeping the main DNA, so the child would still look like the mother and father.
From Scientific American: "Once the mtDNA has been swapped out, the egg could be fertilized in the lab by the father's sperm and the embryo would be implanted back into mom where pregnancy would proceed. The resulting child would be the genetic offspring of the intended mother but would carry healthy mitochondrial genes from the donor."
The New York Times has a shorter version of the story, as well as an opinion column urging ethical and moral consideration of this procedure.
Is this an ethical way to prevent future harm, or the start of a slippery slope to designer babies? Is the creation of designer babies immoral?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by c0lo on Friday February 28 2014, @03:57AM
Misfortune does the even more the same. For every bold that succeeds there are countless that perish.
Let's bring this closer to personal: assume that an unknown (yet) risk is to have the your baby not only affected by seizures but, due to something about the operation of mitochondrial DNA change, the result in a clinical idiot baby; would you pay the price of taking care of this child for her/his entire life?
Assume you are the doctor to perform the operation, would you do it if the parents put you upfront the condition of paying for the care of the child in case of failure?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by tftp on Friday February 28 2014, @04:10AM
Let's bring this closer to personal: assume that an unknown (yet) risk is to have the your baby not only affected by seizures but, due to something about the operation of mitochondrial DNA change, the result in a clinical idiot baby; would you pay the price of taking care of this child for her/his entire life?
Every parent already signs on that dotted line when s/he elects to have a baby. Babies do not come with warranties; you get what you get, and from now on it's all yours to care for.
Assume you are the doctor to perform the operation, would you do it if the parents put you upfront the condition of paying for the care of the child in case of failure?
Doctors never guarantee success; they are not gods and they do not control *everything* that goes into your child. Consequently, no doctor would pay you anything in case the treatment is not entirely successful. They have their hands full with malpractice lawsuits, which have a much higher threshold (something that the doctor did that was done contrary to the prevailing medical practice.)
(Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Friday February 28 2014, @04:30AM
(I can't stop myself from noticing your quick "route of escape". I asked if you would be willing to take unknown risks in two different PoV, and you slided into "every parent" and "doctors never".
No longer personal: I wonder sometimes if boldness correlates with a faltering of the empathy sense?)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by tftp on Friday February 28 2014, @06:38AM
I can't stop myself from noticing your quick "route of escape". I asked if you would be willing to take unknown risks in two different PoV, and you slided into "every parent" and "doctors never".
It's just a good generalization that is nearly always true (nearly - in case if you point at some bad parent who kills or gives away their unwanted child, or at a doctor who promises specific results no matter what.) Who cares what I specifically believe in? It's not helping anyone to know; it's not even statistic. A universal formula is far more valuable.
(Score: 1) by Barrabas on Friday February 28 2014, @04:22AM
The answer is simple: Perform the operation on a baby who would *already* be subject to such limitations without the procedure.
And as has been pointed out, the value of one life is around one to two million dollars. As a civilization, we could pay for several of those against the possibility of eliminating certain diseases from the species.
Diseases which in themselves burden the civilization with a much higher cost.
You're story-telling response confuses the possibility of something happening with its likelihood. Even if you correct that flaw, it makes no consideration for the relative costs.
Consider it a gambling equation: if it works, we've won the (species) lottery. If it fails, we're out $2.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by c0lo on Friday February 28 2014, @04:33AM
I'm afraid it's not that simple: can't change the DNA (mitochondrial or not) other than in the egg status - once in the embryo status, too many cells to replace that DNA into.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford