Eugenics. Genetic engineering 'A third way'.

[PoopShoot]

I'm all for eugenics in cases of painful, debilitating and deadly genetic disorders.  I'm sorry if some poor girl with CF has to be sterilized or some guy who carries it has to be, but we have the power to wipe these out.  That said, I don't advocate eugenics in the case of "preferable traits" or anything like that.

CF?

https://health.google.com/health/ref/Cystic+fibrosis

[Tank]

Those arguing the negative may argue too much attention to genetics, may have seen Stephen Hawking not born.

Yes absolutely true. This pertains to an 'ideal', should the criteria simply be 'adequate'. I also realise that there would be a million arguments about where and how to draw the 'adequate' line in grey areas. This all hinges on who makes the choice to have a child with known and identified genetic defects. Do the parents have the right to? Can the state say no if they have to foot the bill for a lifetime of care for the individual? In an already overpopulated world should any 'defective' be allowed to be born? That's getting awfully Orwellian to me.

Also for some genius such as Van Gogh, their madness seems entwined with their genius.

I don't have much sympathy for the argument deaf people some times make, that they would prefer deaf children.

Never heard that one (and yes that was a serious comment).

Everyone is familiar with the film Gattaca?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gattaca

Seen it a couple of times. Enjoyable and thought provoking if a little 'up its own arse'.  Quite pertinent to this thread.

[Tank]

I'm all for eugenics in cases of painful, debilitating and deadly genetic disorders.  I'm sorry if some poor girl with CF has to be sterilized or some guy who carries it has to be, but we have the power to wipe these out.  That said, I don't advocate eugenics in the case of "preferable traits" or anything like that.

CF?

https://health.google.com/health/ref/Cystic+fibrosis

Cheers. I know what Cystic Fibrosis is I'd never seen it referred to by an acronym before.

Well here we have a wonderful dilemma. A person with CF will pass on the faulty gene when they reproduce. However unless their partner also has CF their offspring will only carry the faulty gene as a recessive and will thus not suffer from the disease. This gives the offspring the opportunity to abort CF effected embryos and thus clear the trait from the line. So the reproductive rule could be that a CF effected individual may not reproduce with another CF effected individual. No need for enforced sterilisation. And frankly what right do you or I or anybody have to forcibly sterilise another? The state could offer an incentive to sterilisation based on the potential saving of not having to support a CF effected offspring. But then we are on the slippery slope to putting a value on the life of an individual.

[PoopShoot]

Well here we have a wonderful dilemma. A person with CF will pass on the faulty gene when they reproduce. However unless their partner also has CF their offspring will only carry the faulty gene as a recessive and will thus not suffer from the disease.

Yet carriers are carriers.

This gives the offspring the opportunity to abort CF effected embryos and thus clear the trait from the line. So the reproductive rule could be that a CF effected individual may not reproduce with another CF effected individual.

Genetic sequencing in search of carriers is inefficient and costly.  Additionally, we are then still enforcing a relationship ban.

No need for enforced sterilisation.

Substitute forced abortion.  Kind of a lateral move, dontcha think?

And frankly what right do you or I or anybody have to forcibly sterilise another?

The same as we have the right to forcibly abort a fetus or restrict a loving relationship or any other right granted by the state.

So we are either restricting some rights at some point or doing nothing.  I personally feel that compulsory sterilization, while a bit odious, is less odious than the alternatives mentioned.  Compulsory abortion is a bit of a lateral idea (morally speaking anyway) but is more costly than compulsory sterilization of individuals known to have the defective genes.  Restricting relationships is less effective and more invasive on the lifestyle front.  Sterilized women could still adopt children (there is a huge need for this in America anyway), meaning that they could have children, just not children that are genetically their own.  It's not ideal, but it's the least invasive method as far as tampering with individual lifestyles goes.

As for slippery slopes, I don't advocate eugenics being implemented in subjective cases, only in cases where there is an objectively verifiable disease that is genetic based and is deadly or debilitating.

[The Magic Pudding]

Also for some genius such as Van Gogh, their madness seems entwined with their genius.

I don't have much sympathy for the argument deaf people some times make, that they would prefer deaf children.

Never heard that one (and yes that was a serious comment).

Never heard of the deaf thing or the Van Gogh business?

http://www.practicalethicsnews.com/practicalethics/2009/07/refusing-cochlear-implants-is-it-child-neglect.html
Lobby group Deaf Australia says the implant "implies that deaf people are ill or incomplete individuals, are lonely and unhappy, cannot communicate effectively with others and are all desperately searching for a cure for their condition. [This] demeans deaf people, belittles their culture and language and makes no acknowledgment of the diversity of lives deaf people lead, or their many achievements."
Some deaf parents have denied their children cochlear implants. Is this right?

[Tank]

Well here we have a wonderful dilemma. A person with CF will pass on the faulty gene when they reproduce. However unless their partner also has CF their offspring will only carry the faulty gene as a recessive and will thus not suffer from the disease.

Yet carriers are carriers.

But they are people first. I could go on about how one first de-humanises somebody before they kill them, but I'm sure you've heard that and get the point.

This gives the offspring the opportunity to abort CF effected embryos and thus clear the trait from the line. So the reproductive rule could be that a CF effected individual may not reproduce with another CF effected individual.

Genetic sequencing in search of carriers is inefficient and costly.  Additionally, we are then still enforcing a relationship ban.

Genetic sequencing will get cheaper and more efficient, so while that point may hold some weight now that will become less of an issue. There will be those that will break the ban but if it goes to the normal level 97% will hold to the prohibitions. Even if the level drops to 90% it won't take too many generations to effectively eradicate any given condition.

No need for enforced sterilisation.

Substitute forced abortion.  Kind of a lateral move, dontcha think?

No, not really. It's one thing to totally deny a person the ability to reproduce by sterilisation but quite another to require them to selectively 'weed out' CF effected embryos.

And frankly what right do you or I or anybody have to forcibly sterilise another?

The same as we have the right to forcibly abort a fetus or restrict a loving relationship or any other right granted by the state.

Not sure I follow this as the state has no rights in the are you mention. There would be no restriction on the relationships people with CF could have just the production of CF effected offspring.  IF society went the way of attempting to eliminate CF via an inforced eugenics methodology of eradication. Which I'm not sure it would. Take psychology as an example of the types of ethical constraints placed on it by its own organisational bodies. In the nature vs nurture debate it would be brilliant to separate orphaned identical twins at birth and experiment on them. This just isn't allowed. If that level of intervention is not permitted I don't think that the compulsory sterilisation of 30,000 people in the US would be either.

So we are either restricting some rights at some point or doing nothing.  I personally feel that compulsory sterilization, while a bit odious, is less odious than the alternatives mentioned.  Compulsory abortion is a bit of a lateral idea (morally speaking anyway) but is more costly than compulsory sterilization of individuals known to have the defective genes.  Restricting relationships is less effective and more invasive on the lifestyle front.

No. I don't agree re sterilisation and abortion. On the cost front I would not expect there to be a massive difference, except you only need to sterilise once.

Sterilized women could still adopt children (there is a huge need for this in America anyway), meaning that they could have children, just not children that are genetically their own.  It's not ideal, but it's the least invasive method as far as tampering with individual lifestyles goes.

I agree that infertile people could adopt children but I'm not sure that is a reason or good excuse to sterilise somebody who does not want to be sterilised.

As for slippery slopes, I don't advocate eugenics being implemented in subjective cases, only in cases where there is an objectively verifiable disease that is genetic based and is deadly or debilitating.

Understood. This is a very emotive subject and one where there is little consensus. But it is a subject that needs to be constantly revisited in light of constantly changing medical capabilities.

[PoopShoot]

But they are people first. I could go on about how one first de-humanises somebody before they kill them, but I'm sure you've heard that and get the point.

By the same token a doctor dehumanizes a person before healing them.  The oncologist must first reduce the patient to a biopsy sample to discover the histopathology and only then can he diagnose and treat the cancer.  That's not to make light of compulsory sterilization or to say that dehumanization is good (indeed, even when necessary, it's terrible), but to say that it's not inherently bad.  Regardless, a person who carries a person who carries a defective gene is still a carrier of that gene and must be addressed as such if that gene is to be eradicated.

Genetic sequencing will get cheaper and more efficient, so while that point may hold some weight now that will become less of an issue. There will be those that will break the ban but if it goes to the normal level 97% will hold to the prohibitions. Even if the level drops to 90% it won't take too many generations to effectively eradicate any given condition.

Perhaps.  My country's medical establishment has a vested interest in medical procedures, including genetic sequencing, remaining expensive.

No, not really. It's one thing to totally deny a person the ability to reproduce by sterilisation but quite another to require them to selectively 'weed out' CF effected embryos.

Of course.  The former is a single traumatic event, the latter is a series of traumatic events.  Dehumanizing indeed.

Not sure I follow this as the state has no rights in the are you mention.

Sure it does.  The state has whatever rights it chooses.  The only way to prevent the state from exercising its chosen rights is revolution, which merely replaces one state with another, the new state exercising what rights it chooses.  Rights are a construct, not a reality.  You and I have NO rights, but enjoy a system by which we are granted rights by the state.  Go somewhere else and your rights instantly change.  If you're there on vacation, your rights are generally null and void altogether.  My rights exist only in books and I get them only because a judge enforces them.

There would be no restriction on the relationships people with CF could have just the production of CF effected offspring.  

Which is 50% or more.

I agree that infertile people could adopt children but I'm not sure that is a reason or good excuse to sterilise somebody who does not want to be sterilised.

I didn't mean to imply that it was.  In fact, it's nothing more than small consolation.  The REASON for compulsory sterilization is the defective genome.  The reasons for choosing it over other alternatives are subjective.

Understood. This is a very emotive subject and one where there is little consensus. But it is a subject that needs to be constantly revisited in light of constantly changing medical capabilities.

Well, right now the emotional reasoning for "no" seems to be in power.  But in the end, you're right, it's one of those unpleasant subjects that can easily become a reality and quickly.  In fact, the slippery slope is a very possible one if for no other reason than the state can use eugenics programs to its advntage and will quickly jump on one the moment it's socially accpetable.

[Thumpalumpacus]

What of genes which carry, say, sickle-cell anemia or Tay-Sachs?  In certain contexts they are beneficial.

Also, a reduction in genome variability is rarely a benefit for species.  I see no reason to conclude otherwise with humans.

[PoopShoot]

What of genes which carry, say, sickle-cell anemia or Tay-Sachs?  In certain contexts they are beneficial.

I can't see a benefit for Tay-Sachs and the benefit of sickle cell anemia is outweighed by medicines.  Of course, I wouldn't consider sickle cell anemia to be debilitating enough to warrant sterilization.

Also, a reduction in genome variability is rarely a benefit for species.  I see no reason to conclude otherwise with humans.

Yep.  This is one of the reasons that eugenics is a veritable Pandora's box.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I can't see a benefit for Tay-Sachs and the benefit of sickle cell anemia is outweighed by medicines.  Of course, I wouldn't consider sickle cell anemia to be debilitating enough to warrant sterilization.

I was under the impression that Tay-Sachs was thought to aid in TB resistance.  

I personally find the idea of forced sterilization emotionally repulsive.  It is entirely possible that this bias of mine has colored my fact-collection.

[PoopShoot]

I was under the impression that Tay-Sachs was thought to aid in TB resistance.  

Tay-Sachs is fatal in infants.  I'll take the TB (which can be treated with antibiotics).

I personally find the idea of forced sterilization emotionally repulsive.  

Me too, but I'm not making an emotional argument.

[Asmodean]

Tay-Sachs is fatal in infants.  I'll take the TB (which can be treated with antibiotics).

Actually, treating multiresistant strains of TB is notoriously difficult.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Tay-Sachs is fatal in infants.  I'll take the TB (which can be treated with antibiotics).

One form of TSD is, yes, infantile.  I understand there's another form referred to as "late-onset", which allows for full lives in the primacy of youth, including survival to reproductive age, which appears to be salient.

And yes, we'd both take the antibiotics against the TB, but let's face it; that option wasn't handy when selection was sculpting the genome, which is what we're discussing: genome sculpture.

Me too, but I'm not making an emotional argument.

Understood; nor am I.  I was merely pointing out the fact that I have a bias in the matter, which is only fair.

[PoopShoot]

And yes, we'd both take the antibiotics against the TB, but let's face it; that option wasn't handy when selection was sculpting the genome, which is what we're discussing: genome sculpture.

Of course, but we're talking about removing genes whose benefit is irrelevant and whose detriment is huge.

Understood; nor am I.  I was merely pointing out the fact that I have a bias in the matter, which is only fair.

Fairy nuff.

[Heretical Rants]

GATTACA is stupid because it brings up so many things that would not happen merely because gene sequencing for humans became possible.  Several other things would have to happen for there to be discrimination against the unsequenced "race," unconditional selection of only the "best" genes rather than simply exclusion of genes known to be harmful, etc.

--worrying about losing money by training someone that could end up dying of a heart attack at age 40?  --It's not like we won't be able to clone hearts by then...