>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On >Behalf Of Deborah Harrell >Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2002 10:42 PM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: How much do people care about their own health? (Was: >dorepublicans/politicians care...) > >In preface, I think you took my 'Evil Overlady' >without her smileys... :) > >--- Ronn! Blankenship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >wrote: >> Deborah Harrell wrote: >> >- Ronn! Blankenship wrote: >> > > OTOH, where *does* one¹ hold the line on health >> > > costs? >> >_____ >> > > ¹Be that "one" the government, an HMO, a private >> > > insurer, or the individual. >> > >> >No easy answer - I do think people should take more >> >responsibility for their own health re: lifestyle >> >(habits, nutrition, exercise), which would reduce >> >significantly (~40-50% IIRC) the big killers like >> >heart disease and stroke. >> > > <snip> > > >> To open another COW, what do we do about conditions >> which have genetic causes? > >Shades of _Gattaca_... >
Or of Heart of the Comet. I'm sure the Percells would agree that eliminating disease didn't solve their problems. >> If a young person tests positive for >> Huntingdon's disease, do we >> sterilize that person before puberty so they won't >> pass along the bad genes >> and then offer them euthanasia when the symptoms >> start in their 40s? How >> about children with hemophilia, cystic fibrosis, or >> Down's syndrome? (And >> how about their parents?) Mandatory prenatal >> genetic screening followed by >> mandatory abortion if the fetus is not "perfect"? >> And if so, where do we >> draw the line on what is considered a genetic >> "disease"? Homosexuality? Below-normal >> intelligence? Above-normal intelligence? > >Now you're talking social engineering (if I understand >the term correctly), which is quite beyond 'trying to >reduce medical costs.' [Aside: How much has the >missile defense program cost thus far?] > Re: Social engineering issues These are all issues which will no doubt be raised and debated to death in forums way before they reach the point where we will be able to do anything about them. Cystic Fibrosis, Huntingdon's, Tay-Sachs, Hemophilia and Down's Syndrome are considered severe diseases by the medical community. Since tests currently exist to detect the possibility of passing on these defects to one's offspring for all of the above, we can probably assume that if cures become available (through genetic manipulation) they will be rapidly offered to the masses. I think the key word here is "offered". Most of the theories I see raised on this subject, IMO, seem paranoid. They make it sound like our culture will force cures down the throats of people who need them. If a _communicable_ disease threatens large population groups then we can logically expect to see vaccines and cures become mandatory by law. Such a law would be established to protect large populations from infection. But, when a disease affects small, specific groups and is non-communicable except from parent to child through genetics, then IMO such mandatory laws are highly unlikely to be enacted. AFAIK, Homosexuality and Low/High IQ's are not recognized in the medical community as diseases. Mental retardation is, but I'm not sure the causes are usually genetic. Isn't the brain damage most frequently caused by oxygen deprivation as a result of drug/alcohol use during pregnancy or complications during birth? Try 'curing' homosexuality with genetic manipulation and see how far you get. I have strong doubts that such a program would ever get off the ground due to the incredible uproar it would produce. Arguments for and against can be argued ad infinitum without resolution. ><serious> >As someone who does have a spontaneous mutation that, >if passed on, has a 50/50 chance of causing mental >retardation, various cancers and behavioral deficits, >this is not an academic issue for me. At the time >that I would have considered starting a family with >the right man, there were no prenatal tests available; >after a great deal of painful consideration, I chose >not to have children. I've never seen statistics on this, but I would expect that yours would be the most common choice. I know a couple who went through in-vitro four times to make sure they didn't pass on a genetic defect. >In the not-to-distant future, we will be able to >prevent or treat many if not all of the diseases you >mentioned. While I applaud elimination of needless >suffering, I do not like the idea of >"custom-designing" a child to be a blue-eyed, >red-headed 6' 7" basketball player who paints and >likes pythons. Will we tinker with our genes? >Probably. All it will take is one Percell-style mistake for any such project to fold, permanently. I doubt that will prevent mankind from making an attempt, though. Jon GSV How *much* does he like pythons? "OK, you can love your pets, but not LOOOVE your pets!" ~Jeaneane Garafolo / The Truth About Cats & Dogs _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
