Is the concept of "modern" eugenics ethical?

nesf

By modern eugenics, I mean the argument that children who have a disability and or disease are not allowed to be either concieved or birthed. This can stretch as far or as small as you wish.

The question is very apt considering the thread about AIDS and people with AIDS concieving going on, on this board atm. But it also stretches very easily onto genetic disorders such as depression, heart disease etc.

This is going on at the moment in some countries, for instance in the US 80% of children who are indentified as having down syndrome (while they are in the womb) are aborted.

First question, if it was possible, would it be ethical to remove such genetic traces from donated sperm and eggs in oder to artificially concieve a "healthy" baby?

Second question, should people with either an illness or condition that is easily passed onto children be prevented from concieving by the government? Or should decisions like this be left only to to the people involved and should never be regulated?

Third question, is abortion justifiable in the cases where the foetus clearly shows that it will be born with either a disability or major health defect? And where do we draw the line between what is disabling enough or major enough to warrant an abortion?

Eoghan-psych

nesf wrote:

First question, if it was possible, would it be ethical to remove such genetic traces from donated sperm and eggs in oder to artificially concieve a "healthy" baby?

I can see no reason why not - the alternative is to withold a scientific intervention which would improve the life of a child, and I can see *plenty* of ethical objections to *that*.

nesf wrote:

Second question, should people with either an illness or condition that is easily passed onto children be prevented from concieving by the government?

I believe so - obviously I would prefer to see people responsible enought that the legislation *isn't* needed, but daily examples show that people, on the whole, aren't responsible enough to act in the best interests of others.

Phrasing the question the other way round, what you are asking, essentially, is should we knowingly and deliberately bring children into this world who to suffer from debilitating physical conditions which were identified long before birth?

I think the answer to that is clear.

To those who disagree, I ask this: Why *should* we deliberately inflict suffering on a child?

nesf

Eoghan-psych wrote:

Phrasing the question the other way round, what you are asking, essentially, is should we knowingly and deliberately bring children into this world who to suffer from debilitating physical conditions which were identified long before birth?

I think the answer to that is clear.

No. Not all geneticially passed on conditions like depression can be identified before birth. But there is huge amounts of medical evidence showing that they are passed along genetically.

For instance with bipolar depression, if both parents have it, it's 50-70% chance that a child will have it, iirc.

So no you can't rephrase the question that way.

seamus

nesf wrote:

First question, if it was possible, would it be ethical to remove such genetic traces from donated sperm and eggs in oder to artificially concieve a "healthy" baby?

Yes. Provided that the eugenics industry was only concentrating on removing genetic illnesses which would otherwise leave the child with a poor lifestyle. There would be a fine line, and it wouldn't be long before the issue of *improving* otherwise healthy foetuses raises its head, justified by "Improving the health of the unborn child".

Second question, should people with either an illness or condition that is easily passed onto children be prevented from concieving by the government? Or should decisions like this be left only to to the people involved and should never be regulated?

Unfortunately, we cannot justify preventing people from procreating. It could be argued, for example, that dwarves should not be allowed procreate, but sometimes normal healthy babies are born to people with dwarfism, and there's nothing to say that a dwarf cannot have a happy, healthy lifestyle. Who are we to decide that a person with certain genetic abnormalies can never be happy, and should not live?
I've heard it said that many deaf parents would prefer to have a deaf child over a hearing child, as a deaf child can integrate into the parents' peer community better, and hearing children can actually find themselves ostracised.
That said, if the treatment was available, I would like to see full education, and full choice made available to the parents at every step of the conception and pregnancy, so they know exactly what their choices (and the implications of those choices) are for their children.

Third question, is abortion justifiable in the cases where the foetus clearly shows that it will be born with either a disability or major health defect? And where do we draw the line between what is disabling enough or major enough to warrant an abortion?

:E

Can't answer that one

Eoghan-psych

nesf wrote:

No. Not all geneticially passed on conditions like depression can be identified before birth. But there is huge amounts of medical evidence showing that they are passed along genetically.

The evidence shows a genetic *aspect*. Depression is phenotypic, Downs is not.

nesf wrote:

For instance with bipolar depression, if both parents have it, it's 50-70% chance that a child will have it, iirc.

Yes, which makes it a phenotypic condition. Even if the child gets 'unlucky' genese from both parents they don't have a 100% chance of developing BPD.

nesf wrote:

So no you can't rephrase the question that way.

Yes, I can. There are many conditions which are wholly genetic - developing these conditions is an inevitable byproduct of possessing [or not] a given allele or set of alleles. They are genotypic conditions. Others have a genetic component, but only develop under certain environmental conditions.

nesf

Eoghan-psych wrote:

Yes, I can. There are many conditions which are wholly genetic - developing these conditions is an inevitable byproduct of possessing [or not] a given allele or set of alleles. They are genotypic conditions. Others have a genetic component, but only develop under certain environmental conditions.

You miss my point completely.

My question was

nesf wrote:

Second question, should people with either an illness or condition that is easily passed onto children be prevented from concieving by the government? Or should decisions like this be left only to to the people involved and should never be regulated?

I asked the question about illnesses which can have genetic causes. For instance cancer being in your family greatly rises your risk of developing cancer, sepcific forms of it if you want to be pedantic. I did not ask a question about things which are 100% passed on, I asked the question about the more general case of people who have some illness/disability/whatever which is likely to be passed onto their children.

The case about conditions that can be screened for while the child is in the womb is dealt with by the third question I believe.

You are answering a different question to the one I asked, and are trying to twist it into a different question in an effort to make things "black and white" which they are not.

Eoghan-psych

nesf wrote:

You miss my point completely.

No, I got your point.

Any condition which is genotypic - inevitable and inescapable with a given set of alleles - then I can see no valid argument for bringing that child to term. A foetus with the genetic profile for Tay Sachs *will* be born with Tay Sachs, and *will* have a short and terrible life, and *will* die. There is no chance that the baby will *not* be born with TS.

Heart disease is different - it requires a genetic predisposition coupled to environmental factors. It is not an inevitable byproduct of a given set of alleles. There is a very real and marked chance that the baby will *never* develop heart problems. There is a very real and marked chance that if the baby *does* go on to develop heart problems, it will fist have led - or at least had the potential to lead - a full and happy life.

There is a qualitative difference between the two sorts of cases.

Some answers are *definitely* black. The grey ones are up for grabs.

Hairy Homer

Eugenicists = Nazis.

Eoghan-psych

Hairy Homer wrote:

Eugenicists = Nazis.

Eh, no. But thanks for gettting hysterical.

--Kaiser--

well

Eoghan-psych wrote:

Any condition which is genotypic - inevitable and inescapable with a given set of alleles - then I can see no valid argument for bringing that child to term. A foetus with the genetic profile for Tay Sachs *will* be born with Tay Sachs, and *will* have a short and terrible life, and *will* die. There is no chance that the baby will *not* be born with TS.

http://www.marchofdimes.com/professionals/681_1227.asp wrote:

A Tay-Sachs carrier has one normal gene for hex A and one Tay-Sachs gene. The carrier does not have the illness and leads a normal, healthy and full life. However, when two carriers become parents: There is a one-in-four chance that any child they have will inherit a Tay-Sachs gene from each parent and have the disease. There is a one-in-four chance that the child will inherit the normal gene from each parent and be completely free of the disease and the Tay-Sachs gene. There is a two-in-four chance that the child will inherit one of each kind of gene and be a carrier like the parents and free of disease. If only one parent is a carrier, none of their children can have the disease, but each child has a 50-50 chance of inheriting the Tay-Sachs gene and being a carrier.

Lemming

Eoghan-psych wrote:

Yes, which makes it a phenotypic condition. Even if the child gets 'unlucky' genese from both parents they don't have a 100% chance of developing BPD.

HMmmmmm ... I'm spotting a case of "do as I say not as I do" in this argument of yours Eoghan, following the debate on HIV+ suffereres bringing children into the world.

To follow your own mantra, a child born to a HIV+ sufferer cannot be permitted on grounds that there may be a 2% (or less) chance that they might contract the virus off the mother during childbirth. It's either 0% or nothing at all.

Yet here you are claiming it's ok to attempt same because there isn't a 100% certainty that a child would develop another condition, like BPD.

Does anyone here want to point out the flaw in this argument?

For someone who claims

Interests:
Shredding silly, incoherent or just downright ignorant arguments.

you would do well to remember your own proclaimed interests before you hit the "submit" button on your posts.

CathyMoran

Personally as a former geneticist I am against genetic engineering of the type described above UNLESS they have a technique which can be definably used to cure certain fatal conditions, and even then there should be a choice (ie it should not be state imposed)...I personally feel thatr playing "God" is a bit too dangerous. DNA is very complex and by curing one thing you could be letting numerous diseases loose (most DNA is junk). Illnesses can also strive to make some people more determined/affect their character and help cause greatness, some illnesses can also confer a protective affect if only one copy of the gene is inherited. I do not feel that we know enough about human DNA yet to interfere in this way.

nesf

CathyMoran wrote:

Personally as a former geneticist I am against genetic engineering of the type described above UNLESS they have a technique which can be definably used to cure certain fatal conditions, and even then there should be a choice (ie it should not be state imposed)...I personally feel thatr playing "God" is a bit too dangerous. DNA is very complex and by curing one thing you could be letting numerous diseases loose (most DNA is junk). Illnesses can also strive to make some people more determined/affect their character and help cause greatness, some illnesses can also confer a protective affect if only one copy of the gene is inherited. I do not feel that we know enough about human DNA yet to interfere in this way.

I agree completely with you.

A case and point was the search for the "depression gene". It turned out that, as excepted by geneticists, that it wasn't a gene but a highly complex series of genes that were shared by depressives of certain types. The only thing that they were sure about was that this sequence of genes almost definitely did more than "just cause depression" and that this sequence could very easily be in people who showed no depressive symptoms.

I've a lay interest in genetics (my background is physics/applied math not biology so I'm not trained in the field), but the main thing that is glaringly obvious is just how little we know about DNA and genetics. It is to be fair an extremely young field in the modern sense, and we are only on the baby steps of it at present. Maybe in 50 years we will know exactly the function of each gene in human DNA, although I seriously doubt it. I'm sure once it's gotten deeper into it will become clear that DNA and genetics are no where near as black and white as the media would like us to believe.

It's kinda the same with physics, in that I have met many many people who are convinced that they understand quantum physics because they know what the Copenhagen Interpretation is. While in reality it takes years of study to really begin to get a grasp of the topic, and even then it is still something that is very misunderstood.

Personally I blame the media's desire to make science accessable to "the common man" approach, which has resulted in so many things being taken completely out of context and led to much of science being trivialised or simplified to absurd levels, just to make it spoon feedable to the masses.

Not that I have any problem with people having a lay interest in science (I am in the same position with other disciplines) but it has led to sensationalising things to such a crazy degree in certain areas. Take the whole stem cell research issue, honestly, the ethics of that should have been left to a panel of qualified people, not the herdlike mob behaviour that resulted from the media's involvement in the case.