At 11:57 PM 12/17/02 -0800, Deborah Harrell wrote:
--- Jon Gabriel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Ronn! Blankenship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [I wrote:] <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.' > > 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 offered to the masses.Well, single-gene defects like "bubble boy disease" (severe combined immune deficiency) are under experimental 'attack' even as we speak (that protocol was temporarily halted when one of the ~9 boys developed leukemia, but oversight panel(s) have since reinstated the trial) - so the time for discussion is now. A chromosomal mutation like Down's (trisomy 21), on the other hand, doesn't appear amenable (to me) to gene therapy, although it is discoverable if chorionic villi sampling or amniocentesis are done; I know what my choice would be, but I would not impose that on another.
Wouldn't the financial burden of raising a child with such problems without outside help perhaps effectively constitute an imposition of choice?
> I think the key word here is "offered". Most >...theories on this subject, IMO, seem paranoid... > like our culture will force cures...[on] people... > If a _communicable_ disease threatens large > population groups then we can > logically expect to see vaccines and cures become > mandatory by law. As is the case with school vaccines (although parents can, in many states IIRC, opt out b/c of religious beliefs), and treatment for tuberculosis is also mandated (at least in the states I've worked in).
However, some people don't complete the course of treatment, which has led to drug-resistant strains of TB.
> ...But, when a disease affects specific groups and is > non-communicable except from parent to child through > genetics, then IMO > such mandatory laws are highly unlikely to be > enacted. Probably not, although courts do become involved in the treatment of minors. But what parent would not want a cure for such devastating diseases?
Christian Scientists?
--Ronn! :)
I always knew that I would see the first man on the Moon.
I never dreamed that I would see the last.
--Dr. Jerry Pournelle
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
