Andres--
The point I tried very hard to make, was that we are unable to see the future, and thus, have no way of knowing if today's harmful mutation will be tomorrows beneficial one.
Further, allowing little timmy to survive does not remove him from the gene pool, which alters the expression levels of his genetics in the total population over time. To fix this, you would have to not only save little timmy, but also sterilize him. Forced sterilization is a slippery slope that we have already skid out of control once on. The best solution is still to just not intervene.
You're all for allowing people with terminal diseases to die, but sterilizing them is a line you won't cross? That's some bizarre logic. I think denying people medical treatment because you think they harm the gene pool is a slippery slope.
I don't think you can say a gene will be beneficial in the future (and should be kept) any more than you can say it won't have future benefits (and should be removed). I think the best choice is not to be paralyzed by the unpredictability, but to use our knowledge to make the best predictions we can and change our treatment of certain genes if new effects are discovered.
It's a form of
utilitarian bioethics.
Basically, allowing little timmy, who has accumulated many dangerous mutations in his genetic makeup as a consequence of being a 3rd generation IVF baby (because his father, and grandfather cant produce healthy sperm due to Y chromosome anomalies), to also grow up and require IVF only increases the expression level of the defective Y chromosome in the human population, and only increases the need for medical intervention over time. Preventing timmy's grandfather from getting the IVF, and making him have to adopt instead, removes the genetic health hazards of recurring, required IVF. (In case you didn't know, the reason they have to make so many embryos for IVF is because of embryo viability-- It's very hard on the poor things, and increased genetic anomalies have been reported in literature.) While IVF allows Sam and Sally Jenkins to finally have their miracle baby that they've waited their whole lives for-- how many future generations of Jekins' kids will suffer for their choice?
Choosing not to intervene means choosing not to mess with a process that has more than 2 billion years of evidence proving that it works, and works well.
Choosing TO intervene means choosing to proceed on the assumption that we can do better than this process, motivated by short term goals (Giving the Jenkins' their miracle baby.)
While it makes people happy NOW, and makes them feel good NOW, it is NOT the solution that produces the most healthy population LATER, and thus is excluded when utilitarian bioethical standards are applied.
Basically, your argument seems to boil down to "But that's mean! How can you justify
allowing people to die KILLING PEOPLE, then saying that forced sterility is too extreme!? HOW CAN HAS HAPPEN!?! I think we should do what makes people feel the happiest!"
Nevermind that allowing people to die is fast becoming a patient right, in the wake of "Life saving" procedures that leave somebody as an immobile glob of flesh supported by machines, who suffer in agony the whole time, mostly because of emotional attachments of other people for that person.
Things like DNRs. Allowing people to die is NOT the same thing as actively killing them. Sterilizing people IS actively harming people. It's a fine line, and that's the criterion on which I draw it.
As I said, it is WILDLY unpopular. Never the less, I have some pretty good reasons for resorting to it as a position.
Author
Topic: Gene-Engineering (Read 9074 times)