Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Would you support the modification of embryos to prevent genetic diseases?

  • 18-09-2012 10:28am
    #1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,857 ✭✭✭✭Dave!


    TheJournal had the following article yesterday:
    THE UK’S FERTILITY regulator has launched a public consultation over a controversial new medical procedure that would involve the genetic modification of embryos in order to prevent serious genetic diseases.
    Debilitating medical conditions can be passed onto a foetus by a ‘carrier’ parent, meaning hereditary diseases can be passed down through the generations of a family line.

    The new procedure has sparked controversy as it would involve an IVF embryo carrying DNA from both parents and a third, healthy, female donor – meaning a baby would carry DNA from three biological parents.
    Scientists say the technique could not only prevent a baby from inheriting a devastating genetic disease but may also have the potential wipe the condition from a family line forever.

    British law currently forbids such genetic modifications of embryos and, while new legislation could be written as early as next year with approved support, serious ethical concerns have been raised over the proposals – with opponents condemning the any modification of a human egg.

    Although the proposals are not currently under consideration in Ireland, we’d like to know what you think: would you support the genetic modification of an embryo in order to prevent a hereditary disease?

    Rather surprisingly the poll on that website is quite evenly split between Yes and No :confused: Might as well stick the poll up here

    I'm sure there are some practical considerations such as regulation to worry about, but I don't see how in principle anyone could oppose such a thing :confused: Seems completely immoral to me

    Would you support the modification of embryos to prevent genetic diseases? 152 votes

    Yes
    0% 0 votes
    No
    90% 138 votes
    I don't know
    9% 14 votes


«1

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,349 ✭✭✭✭super_furry


    Yes. It would have to be hugely regulated and scrutinised but if there's the ability to ensure that a child who would have otherwise had cystic fibrosis now won't, then it should be done.


  • Posts: 0 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Coraline Crooked Movement


    Of course people should have the choice


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,749 ✭✭✭✭wes


    As long as its regulated properly, it seems like a perfectly good idea.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 930 ✭✭✭poeticseraphim


    Yes..but obviously not if there were harmful side affects.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,420 ✭✭✭Lollipops23


    So in theory the likes of Cystic Fibrosis could be prevented? I'm well ok with that.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,308 ✭✭✭Hersheys


    Most definately! There is a screening process in place for those who have genetic illnesses who want to have children - embryos are screened to ensure they don't have the illness.

    I don't agree with screening embryos for different benefits, such as physical characteristics. But I absolutely do not have a problem with the modification of embryos to prevent disease.

    Obviously there still could be random mutations that occur so it would not irradicate genetic illnesses, and some genetic illnesses aren't known until after procreation has occurred (eg in Huntingtons the symptoms don't tend to occur until mid 40's) but in the case of CF or other conditions fire away!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,308 ✭✭✭Hersheys


    So in theory the likes of Cystic Fibrosis could be prevented? I'm well ok with that.
    They wouldn't be entirely prevented - any genetic illness can occur when mutations occur within the body, but it would lessen the risks.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 654 ✭✭✭girl2


    Did hitler not want to do something similar - blonde hair, blue eyes……

    We are not God.


  • Posts: 0 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Coraline Crooked Movement


    girl2 wrote: »
    Did hitler not want to do something similar - blonde hair, blue eyes……

    We are not God.

    What a stupid post


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 619 ✭✭✭Dj Stiggie


    As someone with Cystic Fibrosis posting from a hospital bed, I'm all for it.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,690 ✭✭✭✭Skylinehead


    girl2 wrote: »
    Did hitler not want to do something similar - blonde hair, blue eyes……

    We are not God.

    Slightly different not wanting your child to have a genetic disease in fairness.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,349 ✭✭✭✭super_furry


    girl2 wrote: »
    Did hitler not want to do something similar - blonde hair, blue eyes……

    We are not God.

    Godwinned in nine. Good going.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,064 ✭✭✭Gurgle


    girl2 wrote: »
    Did hitler not want to do something similar - blonde hair, blue eyes……
    [ungodwin]
    This is about providing pre-natal treatment to children who would otherwise have to live with / die from genetic disorders.

    It's a next generation approach to vaccination.

    Hitler wanted to ensure that Aryans remained pure Aryans, and didn't have their bloodlines diluted by mixing with other races.

    Hardly the same thing.
    [/ungodwin]


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,202 ✭✭✭Rabidlamb


    This is a touchy one as the technology could also be used for unethical means.
    The greater good should outweigh the fears IMHO.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    The needs of those who are living should always take precedent over the "lives" of embryos.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,246 ✭✭✭✭Dyr


    Hell yes.

    If I'm going to have a full array of gen mod implants by 2023 then we have to start now


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,064 ✭✭✭Gurgle


    eviltwin wrote: »
    The needs of those who are living should always take precedent over the "lives" of embryos.
    Wrong thread.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,246 ✭✭✭✭Dyr


    girl2 wrote: »

    We are not God.

    Obviously, we actually exist for a start


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,800 ✭✭✭Lingua Franca


    I know of a family who have some kind of hereditary hunchback gene, very debilitating and crippling. I was told that the daughters of this family were all voluntarily sterilised to avoid passing this on. My story is hearsay, of course but if we could prevent anyone having to give up their fertility that can only be a good thing


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    Gurgle wrote: »
    Wrong thread.

    Is it :confused:


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,739 ✭✭✭✭starbelgrade


    Until the procedure is fully tested, I'd have to hold judgement on it.

    Morally, I would have no issue with it, once it is medically sound.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,635 ✭✭✭eth0


    Sure they're only embryos


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 654 ✭✭✭girl2


    So……genetically modified people next. I just don't agree. And I understand people don't want to suffer illness etc. but we have to draw a line somewhere.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,064 ✭✭✭Gurgle


    eviltwin wrote: »
    The needs of those who are living should always take precedent over the "lives" of embryos.
    Gurgle wrote: »
    Wrong thread.
    eviltwin wrote: »
    Is it :confused:
    Yes, it is.
    The needs of post-natal people are not threatened by treatments for pre-natal people.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,739 ✭✭✭✭starbelgrade


    girl2 wrote: »
    So……genetically modified people next. I just don't agree. And I understand people don't want to suffer illness etc. but we have to draw a line somewhere.

    The line should only be drawn when we get spider babies.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,064 ✭✭✭Gurgle


    girl2 wrote: »
    So……genetically modified people next. I just don't agree. And I understand people don't want to suffer illness etc. but we have to draw a line somewhere.
    You can opt out when it becomes available for adults. You might even be allowed to deliberately have a sick baby.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,634 ✭✭✭TheBody


    I think it's definitely worth investigating. We just need to be SUPER careful that there are no long term side effects.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 316 ✭✭cassi


    girl2 wrote: »
    So……genetically modified people next. I just don't agree. And I understand people don't want to suffer illness etc. but we have to draw a line somewhere.
    and I sure there would be a line but being able to help someone living with a debilitating condition should be far from crossing that line in my opinion.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    Gurgle wrote: »
    Yes, it is.
    The needs of post-natal people are not threatened by treatments for pre-natal people.

    Are you feeling a bit ignored in the abortion threads?

    My bad, I read the article and took it up wrong. :o It happens, no need for the smart comments.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,064 ✭✭✭Gurgle


    eviltwin wrote: »
    no need for the smart comments.
    Apologies, edited.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,881 ✭✭✭JohnMarston


    Wouldnt the inclusion of a third biological parent open up another can of worms?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 27,857 ✭✭✭✭Dave!


    girl2 wrote: »
    So……genetically modified people next. I just don't agree. And I understand people don't want to suffer illness etc. but we have to draw a line somewhere.

    How about we draw the line after preventing debilitating genetic diseases? Seems like a better place to draw the line than before that.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,205 ✭✭✭Benny_Cake


    It would take a lot of money and research to determine whether there are side-effects but I see no reason why we shouldn't proceed - cautiously and with regard to any ethical implications. It's a terrible thing to be carrying a rare condition from generation to generation like a hidden timebomb. I have relatives whose immediate family has nearly been wiped out by a condition affecting less than ten families worldwide and it breaks my heart that nothing can be done.


  • Moderators, Computer Games Moderators Posts: 15,240 Mod ✭✭✭✭FutureGuy


    Providing it is safe, absolutely.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 520 ✭✭✭dpe


    Dave! wrote: »
    How about we draw the line after preventing debilitating genetic diseases? Seems like a better place to draw the line than before that.

    Playing Devil's Advocate, the phrase "debilitating genetic disease" is key here. What about Downs and other similar conditions? Personally I would be all for genetic modification in these cases but I know parents of Downs children who would strongly disagree with me, arguing that in modern society Downs isn't a death sentence and quality of life is much improved. The point is, "the line" isn't actually clear cut, and the drift from disease prevention to selecting for positive traits is an easy road to go down, then we're all living in Gattaca, and frankly they looked like a right bunch of boring feckers.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,593 ✭✭✭Sea Sharp


    No, god wouldn't like it!!!!










    (just kidding, of course it'd be ok. :pac:)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,064 ✭✭✭Gurgle


    Wouldnt the inclusion of a third biological parent open up another can of worms?
    They wouldn't be a parent, just a donor of a few genes that neither parent has good ones of.

    99% of the human genome is shared by all humans.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    Hersheys wrote: »
    They wouldn't be entirely prevented - any genetic illness can occur when mutations occur within the body, but it would lessen the risks.

    Both parent must be carries in order for a child to have CF. 1/2 chance. So it could be prevented by modifying the embryo to remove the gene if present. It's not a mutation :rolleyes:


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,308 ✭✭✭Hersheys


    smash wrote: »
    Both parent must be carries in order for a child to have CF. 1/2 chance. So it could be prevented by modifying the embryo to remove the gene if present. It's not a mutation :rolleyes:
    True, but other random mutations could occur that give rise to genetic diseases - telling people who have a disease/are a carrier for a disease not to procreate would not irradicate genetic illness in the world.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    Hersheys wrote: »
    True, but other random mutations could occur that give rise to genetic diseases - telling people who have a disease/are a carrier for a disease not to procreate would not irradicate genetic illness in the world.

    I don't think anybody stated they shouldn't procreate or that it would eradicate illnesses. What were's talking about is a way to prevent some of the more commons ones that can not be cured.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,468 ✭✭✭✭OldNotWIse


    Makes sense. We are already allowing allowing the destruction of the foetus because it is not perfect, might as well ensure perfection before it reaches this stage.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,308 ✭✭✭Hersheys


    smash wrote: »
    I don't think anybody stated they shouldn't procreate or that it would eradicate illnesses. What were's talking about is a way to prevent some of the more commons ones that can not be cured.
    Yes I know. I was just saying that random mutations can occur and cause a disease.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    OldNotWIse wrote: »
    Makes sense. We are already allowing allowing the destruction of the foetus because it is not perfect, might as well ensure perfection before it reaches this stage.
    Removing a terminal illness is not ensuring perfection ffs. We're not talking about people walking into a doctor and saying "I want my son to be tall, dark and handsome."


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,468 ✭✭✭✭OldNotWIse


    smash wrote: »
    Removing a terminal illness is not ensuring perfection ffs. We're not talking about people walking into a doctor and saying "I want my son to be tall, dark and handsome."

    Why has it become only "terminal illnesses" now?

    The title refers to Genetic diseases. Not all genetic diseases are terminal.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,205 ✭✭✭Benny_Cake


    dpe wrote: »
    Playing Devil's Advocate, the phrase "debilitating genetic disease" is key here. What about Downs and other similar conditions? Personally I would be all for genetic modification in these cases but I know parents of Downs children who would strongly disagree with me, arguing that in modern society Downs isn't a death sentence and quality of life is much improved. The point is, "the line" isn't actually clear cut, and the drift from disease prevention to selecting for positive traits is an easy road to go down, then we're all living in Gattaca, and frankly they looked like a right bunch of boring feckers.

    That's a fair point actually, and it would have to be very clear as to what a "debilitating condition" is. Downs is a tricky one as there are different degrees of seriousness, some manage to live very full lives.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    OldNotWIse wrote: »
    Why has it become only "terminal illnesses" now?

    The title refers to Genetic diseases. Not all genetic diseases are terminal.
    But they're still diseases which cause discomfort and they can be prevented. Yet you were talking about removing a disease as if it's creating perfection.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 714 ✭✭✭Ziphius


    Wouldnt the inclusion of a third biological parent open up another can of worms?

    That the "third parent" is specifically female makes me think that this is just a method to replace faulty mitochondria from a zygote than a true example of genetic modification.

    Mitochondria generate the energy that cells require and are inherited only from mother to child. Mitochondria also contain their own set of DNA distinct from the rest of the cell.

    If a woman produces eggs with fault mitochondria this method involves the transfer of the nuclear DNA from the fertilized egg (via IVF) to a donor egg (the third parent) which has healthy mitochondria. The egg can then be transferred back to the uterus were it can develop as normal.

    The article looks more like its describing a method to help infertile couples conceive rather than a cure for genetic diseases.

    Edit Writing this initially I assumed that any mitochondrial diseases would be fatal and the fertilized egg with not develop particularly far. Turns out there are a range of "Mitochondrial diseases", such as that Diabetes mellitus and deafness, do occur in children and adults. A list here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_disease#Classification


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,459 ✭✭✭Ledger


    Helping prevent children being born with debilitating genetic diseases?


    Do you need to ask? 100% Yes.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,081 ✭✭✭✭My name is URL


    Ledger wrote: »
    Helping prevent children being born with deliberative genetic diseases?


    Do you need to ask?
    100% Yes.

    :pac:


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Where does the line get drawn at which conditions are considered debilitating?


  • Advertisement
Advertisement