My January article is titled "'Three-parent IVF' may be made legal in UK, says minister" written by
Link
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/threeparent-ivf-may-be-made-legal-in-uk-says-minister-6292254.html?origin=internalSearch
Summary
Laurance's article reports on the current state and legality of a special treatment option for the rare, devastating, and inheritable mitochondrial disease in the United Kingdom. The treatment involves helping to stop the inheritable disease through an In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) process with three parents. The procedure involves removing the nucleus of an infected egg and placing it into an egg of a female donor surrounded by healthy mitochondria, followed by fertilization of sperm from biological father into the donor, thus allowing the baby to have genetic characteristics from it's biological parents, in addition to the beneficial mitochondria from the donor. IVF and embryo experimentation are already controversial practices - opponents (as cited in the article from "The society for the protection of unborn children") question whether research scientists and medicine should be allowed "to play God" and they also believe altering unborn life to be a completely unethical practice; many would rather promote adult stem cell research. The treatment would disrupt the disease, potentially curing it, alleviating the suffering felt by too many families, as cited by a 33 year old mother whose family carries the disease.
One Question I have
I struggle to understand why people have a problem with this procedure. Those who support the sanctity of life and who so fiercely fight for unborn children don't seem to see the connection between unborn life and mitochondrial diseased infants. Protecting unborn children from being deprived of the opportunity to life is the same as allowing a young infant with this deadly mitochondrial disease to receive this treatment so that they as well have the opportunity to life instead of dying because the treatment is not available or legal. I'm not empathetic towards unborn children, I just believe that a child already born and who has the full potential to live if treated should have priority. I hope that doesn't sound mean, but who knows whether that unborn and undeveloped egg if fertilized will have it's own problems in the future - a serious and debilitating disease preventing it from full quality of life. So the main question I have come up with is:
If opponents to this procedure believe so strongly in life of unborn children, what about the life of an already born and sick child...don't they have an equal if not greater right to life, no matter the conditions?
While I do not see a problem with this procedure myself, those who do perhaps fear what this procedure might lead to in the future. Those who oppose are not against helping a child and preventing the birth of a diseased-fated baby but rather oppose the procedure out of fear of opening a new door in the process of having a child. If we begin to accept the this In Vitro process as a method of having children, what else might we see as ethical acceptable? Perhaps, this would open the door to modifying the entire process of conceiving a child. People might begin to think it right to pick and choose exactly what they want their children to look like and what talents they are to posses, messing with nature and ruining the truly miraculous part of having a child and of becoming a human being. Of course this is only one example; this in vitro process can potentially open the door for other procedures that lie on the border of that which we see as ethical acceptable.
ReplyDeleteAnn Marie does put forth a realistic idea, in which those who oppose this kind of fertilization because of fears of what it would lead to. But the pros and cons are too wide apart with the pros leading. A woman can have a child with knowledge that that child does not have the same mitochondrial disease as she, and that in the broader sense, this disease could be completely eliminated from the UK within 2 generations, if this procedure is legalized. Sure, doctors are playing God, but aren't doctors supposed to play God to a certain extent. Their main goal is to find and eliminate diseases, and to help people recover from injuries. It will still be quite a far ways, perhaps another decade, before scientists have the ability to genetically engineer each person, and I think by then, we will have a better idea on genetic engineering to make the right choice on it.
ReplyDeleteYes, I agree with Alex that in a sense, doctors are playing God; however, that's their job. Doctors recite the Hippocratic Oath and are expected to "prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure".
DeleteIn addition, the main reason purpose of In-Vitro Fertilization is to eliminate any genetic disorders so that doctors can prolong their lifespans; their main goal isn't to have "designer babies" but it is true that pretty soon this procedure will only lead to parents consulting doctors for this procedure to have a "perfect" kid.