Personally, this worries me............. (moral, moral, verse, science, Article)

[michel]

I don't know if you will agree.........
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...170864,00.html


Britain
Times OnlineMay 08, 2006
Embryos should be screened for 'cancer genes'

By Mark Henderson, Science Correspondent of The Times
Women with inherited forms of breast cancer will be allowed to select embryos free from genes that can cause the disease, under recommendations to be approved on Wednesday by the Government’s fertility watchdog.
NI_MPU('middle');The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority’s (HFEA) influential ethics and law committee has advised it to allow embryo screening for three genes that greatly raise the risk of cancer, but do not always cause the disease.
The landmark ruling, which also applies to a form of bowel cancer, will deepen controversy over 'designer' babies, as it significantly expands the range of inherited conditions that can be prevented by 'cherry-picking' suitable embryos.
The decision will enable thousands of men and women who carry the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, which confer an 80 per cent lifetime risk of breast cancer, and the HNPCC gene, which carries an 80 per cent risk of colon tumours, to avoid passing these mutations on to future generations.
Embryo screening, which uses a technique called pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD), has been used for years to detect disorders such as cystic fibrosis, which always develop in people with certain genes and tend to strike in childhood.
In 2004, The Times revealed that the HFEA had also approved PGD for a form of inherited colon cancer that develops in early adulthood in only 90 per cent of those with the gene, setting a precedent that is followed by the new advice.
If the recommendations are approved on Wednesday by a meeting of the full authority in Belfast, as is expected, the first applications for licences to screen for breast cancer can be expected within weeks.
At least one London clinic already has a waiting list of about ten patients seeking to screen for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations.
Alistair Kent of the Genetic Interest Group, which represents patients with inherited disorders, welcomed the advice. "We endorse this decision, which will be of benefit to a number of families who have often been exposed to these conditions for a number of generations," he said.

[SoyLeche]

I personally would never do this. I guess I can't judge those that would though.

The thing that interests me is how something like insurance would change. If it is possible to have a child with little or no risk of cancer, it would stand to reason that they would be cheaper to insure. Should that be allowed though?

I guess I don't know where I stand on genetic testing in general. I can see that a lot of good could come from it - but it could also cause a lot of problems.

[Scarlett Wampus]

I was seeing a girl for a few years whose family had a high risk of two major terminal illnesses. I can't imagine her not screening for such things for the sake of her children, it worried her so much.

[Super Universe]

What if a woman had constant miscarriages and when the doctors looked at her eggs under a microscope they saw that many of them were deformed but some were not?

Would you disagree with her using the good eggs instead?

It is not our purpose to live in squalor and pain and be afraid to improve. Some day we will be able to cure all genetic diseases, I am sure of it. Till then we will do what we can to help.

[mr.guy]

Originally Posted by su

Some day we will be able to cure all genetic diseases, I am sure of it.

This in part explains why we never see dentists in star trek.

[evearael]

I very firmly oppose this. It is morally abhorent to select an embryo because they have a bigger chance of getting cancer at the age of fifty. It is disgusting to suggest that people with genetic diseases have nothing to contribute to society. Hitler would be proud of this... I am sickened.

[michel]

Originally Posted by Super Universe

What if a woman had constant miscarriages and when the doctors looked at her eggs under a microscope they saw that many of them were deformed but some were not?

Would you disagree with her using the good eggs instead?

It is not our purpose to live in squalor and pain and be afraid to improve. Some day we will be able to cure all genetic diseases, I am sure of it. Till then we will do what we can to help.

That's a valid point, but only because the eggs would be examined anyway.

Just think of all the wonderfully talented painters, artists, musicians............that would not have been allowed to have a life if this had been in use a few hundred years ago.

[Scarlett Wampus]

Originally Posted by evearael

I very firmly oppose this. It is morally abhorent to select an embryo because they have a bigger chance of getting cancer at the age of fifty. It is disgusting to suggest that people with genetic diseases have nothing to contribute to society. Hitler would be proud of this... I am sickened.

So, an embryo should already be considered a person with a right to life?

[mr.guy]

So, an embryo should already be considered a person with a right to life?

I think eugenics is scary enough without descending to this argument.