|
Wednesday, August 01, 2007
How far should we let embryo selection go? Posted at: 00:01 MPs
and peers have called for the relaxation of rules on the creation of
"saviour siblings" - babies born from specifically selected embryos to
provide tissue to treat older brothers or sisters - in a move that has
angered "pro-life" campaigners. Currently the law
allows embryo selection only to ensure a genetic match for existing
siblings with life-threatening conditions, but members of a
parliamentary committee want to broaden this to include
non-life-threatening conditions such as autism. "Saviour
siblings" are created when parents use IVF to produce a number of
embryos, then select the one which matches the tissue of their existing
child. Do you think the rules regarding "saviour
siblings" should be relaxed so that doctors can attempt to treat a
wider range of conditions? Would you use this technology if it were
made available? Isn't it sensible to do what we can to treat serious
illnesses such as autism? Or is this, as critics
have suggested, a step towards creating "designer babies" whose primary
purpose is to provide medical treatment for others? To send a letter to the editor of The Daily Telegraph, email dtletters@telegraph.co.uk Comments (13)
The problem with Modern-day Mortals is a lack of true belief in an afterlife.
Medical research is sometimes a bit too much.....certainly ethically.
yrs. etc. Isabel Witty.NZ
Posted by Isabel Witty on August 1, 2007 9:51 AM
Report this comment I
have to ask myself is this better than finding disused wells full of
baby girls late-aborted or victims of infanticide at the hands of the
medical profession as has been exposed several times recently in India.
As ever the problems are being addressed from the wrong end. In
India dowries are supposed to have been abolished but this has been
completely ignored by cultural factors and makes a baby girl a most
unwelcome addition to the family.
India, despite massive popoulation expansion is now short of
single women of marriagable age to match with men desperate for wives.
In Britain our interference in eugenics borders on the obscene
with the concept of designer babies - it would only be a short step
down the moral scale to produce them purely for harvesting purposes -
not to have lives of their own.
The deliberately anencephalic newborn for rearing to use in
matched transplants is the next horror idea the specialists will devise.
Posted by simon coulter on August 1, 2007 9:51 AM
Report this comment Any games involve in playing with nature, are very dangeous.
Its simply stupid act!!!
Posted by Sillybilly on August 1, 2007 9:33 AM
Report this comment One
of the great problems we have in this country is that when we allow
something that seems perfectly reasonable, there are always those who
end up taking it to the limits, far beyond what was intended.
If abortion is taken as an example, the original proposition was
very reasonable; victims of rape, those with a seriously defective
child and those whose life might be threatened, could have an abortion.
Look at the actual results - effectively abortion on demand. If
there is no other good reason, any woman who wants an abortion claims
her mental health and thus her life is at risk.
There are other areas, outside medicine, where the law has been
abused in a similar manner, and I fear that there are researchers who
will go just too far, invariably using the excuse "There is a
possibility that this research may help to cure xxx". I can see nothing
against the proposal as it stands, which seems perfectly logical, but
then, at the time, I thought the same about abortion.
Posted by Brian E on August 1, 2007 9:22 AM
Report this comment i
would make it legal for any couple that wanted to produce a child to
have a genetic test for unseen genetic defects in its inheritence.. i
wish they had these tests years ago.as my wife and i had a tradgedy in
our lives through a child defects.
Posted by max bernstein on August 1, 2007 9:08 AM
Report this comment It should never have been started.
Posted by Peter Hindley on August 1, 2007 8:41 AM
Report this comment How about b reeding some Maths and Physics teachers?
Posted by Hamish, Glasgow on August 1, 2007 8:26 AM
Report this comment Having
a child is a very wonderful and responsible thing. Each one of our 4
children was created out of a desire to have them and raise them. Each
is very different from the other and that creates many challenges and
joys. Above all, each is loved unequivocally in equal amounts. There
are no favourites.
One can only despair at the heartaches that parents of sick and
diseased children must endure. Obviously any parent of a sick or dying
child would want to do anything within their power to help or cure
them. It is understandable that creating a sibling with “healing”
potential is an avenue they would be happy to undergo.
Only the motives must be the reverse. If a couple desire another child,
a brother or sister for all the normal reasons, then one would be
heartless to deny them some chance to save the sibling. However, if the
desire to have another baby is primarily as a chance cure for another,
what does that say of that child.
If the process is successful that will be good news for the sick child,
and hopefully they will both grow up to be loved and cherished equally.
If the process fails then will the newborn be resented for not having “worked” and be despised for not saving its sick sibling.
I don’t speak as a parent of a seriously sick child – but crueler
than any disability of disease would be the evolution of a society that
one day apathetically breeds to perform a service to others.
Posted by Angus Long on August 1, 2007 8:19 AM
Report this comment The
ethics and social conventions are situation and time oriented. The
growing scientific knowldge calls for progressive updations of ethics
and values,even thought process in religion has been progressive. So
it'll be really sad if progressive nation like U.K DOESN'T ALLOW ITS
SCIENTISTS TO MAKE OPTIMUM USE OF scientific research for the
betterement of future generations. I endorse the views of Paul Lennon
Posted by M Saleem Chaudhry on August 1, 2007 8:00 AM
Report this comment As
long as the research and treatment is controlled properly and not
abused in any way, then I'm all for this; especially if this treatment
gives people a better quality of life. I wonder how many of these "Pro
Life Campaigners" have a sick child.
Posted by Liz (Germany) on August 1, 2007 7:09 AM
Report this comment Dear Sirs,
Given the moving comment by Tom Moore above, nothing more needs to be said.
Posted by Vivian J Phillips on August 1, 2007 7:03 AM
Report this comment I
tend to be very sceptical of so called cures as a result of any type of
embryonic stem cell research. I remember the claims that were made in
1990 if Parliament allowed "regulated" embryo research. A recent
Parliamentary Question by the Pro-Life stalwart MP, David Amess showed
that there have been no cures as a result of either embryo research or
embryonic stem cell research (same claims, different type of research).
The use of adult stem cells is much more promising. Why are we not
going down that road, rather than use something that is ethically
repugnant?
Posted by Paul Lennon on August 1, 2007 6:47 AM
Report this comment If
the British do not make as much progress with embryo selection as we
safely can, some other nation will, and then they will have better
human beings than us.
The British have an anti-medical culture, "nature's way is better." Nature does not cure Appendicitis or Autism.
If there is a God, He has given us embryo selection, amongst other
methods, such as the drug Ritalin, to make good some of the defects in
humankind.
My parents inflicted Autism on me in ignorance. Do you suggest the
parents of today should inflict Autism on their children deliberately?
Posted by Tom Moore on August 1, 2007 5:47 AM
Report this comment
Post a comment
|
