Genetic Screening

[Dolerite]

If a system of compulsory genetic screening (where fetus' are tested for genetic diseases) were established, do you think the infringement on personal freedoms of the parents would outweigh the benefits (such as quality of life and increased life expectancy) to the unborn child?

[Yazman]

Infringement on personal freedoms? What infringement? Who the hell would oppose genetic screening of fetuses? What sort of psycho would want people to be born with fucked up debilitating illnesses?

[ArrowLance]

I don't think it should be required though, heavily recommended would be fine. But I'd rather force as few things as possible.

[Bitter Ashes]

Infringement on personal freedoms? What infringement? Who the hell would oppose genetic screening of fetuses? What sort of psycho would want people to be born with fucked up debilitating illnesses?
Well, you cant discredit the disabled so quickly as not bieng able to be useful parts of society. Steven Hawking (while I may not like his more recent theories) has undoubtibly been a worthwhile part of the human race. Beethoven was a great entertainer of his day despite bieng deaf. Steveie Wonder was also an entertainer who disabled. Roosevelt was confined to a wheelchair, but still had the public's support enough to be elected as president of the United States three times (I didnt even think you could do that!).

I'm pro-choice, but opening up a door for parents to discriminate against thier own kids just doesnt make logical sense to me.

[piet11111]

yes i would support it.

the point being that when we screen for these defects we will be able to correct them so that people like stephen hawking would be able to walk and talk like everyone else.

[Yazman]

Well, you cant discredit the disabled so quickly as not bieng able to be useful parts of society. Steven Hawking (while I may not like his more recent theories) has undoubtibly been a worthwhile part of the human race. Beethoven was a great entertainer of his day despite bieng deaf. Steveie Wonder was also an entertainer who disabled. Roosevelt was confined to a wheelchair, but still had the public's support enough to be elected as president of the United States three times (I didnt even think you could do that!).

I'm pro-choice, but opening up a door for parents to discriminate against thier own kids just doesnt make logical sense to me.

Uh, I didn't "discredit the disabled."

I'm talking about unborn fetuses. LOL, I mean nobody wants to be born with debilitating illnesses, if we have the technology to genetically alter or screen out fetuses that have such problems I don't see a reason to keep them. Screening out genetic diseases and faults doesn't mean we are somehow not going to have any more brilliant musicians, scientists, and politicians.

We don't need to force people to do it but it should certainly be strongly encouraged. The only people I can see being opposed to it are religious people.

Also I think its quite hilarious your describing this position as "parents discriminating against their own kids." How the hell do you discriminate against a friggin fetus? That is one of the more silly notions I've seen on this site.

Discrimination doesn't come into the topic at all, that is something totally beside the point.

[Dolerite]

Keep in mind that genetic screening doesn't necessarily mean abortion, it's still the parents choice. Some people would prefer not to know though (for some reason), which means their child could be born with a treatable disease that is not being treated (such as cystic fibrosis). So should society let the parents make the choice for their children, or force them to be responsible parents?

[Bitter Ashes]

Keep in mind that genetic screening doesn't necessarily mean abortion, it's still the parents choice. Some people would prefer not to know though (for some reason), which means their child could be born with a treatable disease that is not being treated (such as cystic fibrosis). So should society let the parents make the choice for their children, or force them to be responsible parents?
Well the point I was making was that disabled individuals have had a positive effect on society, so I think it would be a bit wrong for society to dictate that disabled individuals shouldnt be allowed to be born.

I'd say it'd be up to the parents to deciede whether they could cope with caring for a child's disabilities. That is somethign that we could help with education for parents to be. Dispelling some myths whilst also ensuring that there's going to be no hidden suprises along the way (I'm begining to see the point of screening in that respect perhaps). After that, if they're still adamant it wouldnt work it'd be asking whether 3rd party adoption or care is an option. If it's still a no then I guess the final word goes to the parents about whether to abort or not.

The thing that worries me is the idea that parents who would keep a healthy fetus, would abort a disabled one based solely on predjudice, or misinformation. It almost reminds me of that couple recently who had a screening to ensure that thier kid would grow up straight (they believe the genetic, rather than hormonal, or otherwise, idea on determined sexuality). They said they could cope with a straight child, but not a gay one. Is it much different when a couple says they would accept a healthy child in thier lives, but not a disabled one?

[piet11111]

i would not want my child to be disabled if i can do something about it because it would negatively affect their life's quality for instance a wheelchair bound child would never be able to become an athlete and i would want my kid to have a normal body so that my kid would at least have a choice if he/she would want to instead of a big fat can't.

then you have all sorts of predispositions towards disease that if corrected would allow a longer healthier life.
and in the distant future we might even be able to enhance health and intelligence.

being a parent is all about giving every possible advantage to your kids and genetic screening will allow us to do so.
and anyone that is opposed to such a thing is in my opinion unfit to be a parent because he/she puts the wellbeing of their child in 2nd place to something else (religion lifestyle)

[Yazman]

Why the hell hasn't this been moved to Science & Environment, by the way?

[h0m0revolutionary]

Uh, I didn't "discredit the disabled."

Discrimination doesn't come into the topic at all, that is something totally beside the point.

Nah sorry comrade but I think you're wrong here.

If we can terminate a womans pregnancy based on the fact her child is disabled in some form, then those who are born disabled will be seen as second-class, or at least the parents of that child will be harrassed for making the (percieved) 'choice' to have a disabled child.

Allowing abortion of disabled babies on grounds of impairment engenders a culture where the lives of disabled people are less worthwhile than those of non-disabled people, making disabled people feel even less valued by society.

In fact this already exisst for post-birth children and I find it really sickening and it's what made me become active in disAbled campaign, take these examples:



Doctors made no attempt to help David Glass, a boy with hydrocephalus, until 50 minutes after his birth when he began to cry. Twelve years later, doctors tried to ensure a ‘death with dignity’ by injecting him with diamorphine when he had a chest infection. It is only thanks to his family’s fight to keep him alive that the drip was removed and he was allowed to recover.



A ‘do not resuscitate’ notice was recorded in the medical notes of a five-month old baby girl who was suffering from a chromosome abnormality, which caused her a diaphragmatic hernia and breathing problems. She contracted a throat infection and an emergency protection order was placed on her parents restricting visits. The hospital did not seek a judicial review before withdrawing treatment and the baby died.



A baby born with brain damage was resuscitated and then after 20 minutes the parents were pressured into allowing the child to die without treatment. (They believed it was to save the lifetime costs of being a disabled person.) An autopsy revealed that his brain, heart and lung were healthy and medical intervention could have saved him.



A baby born with Down’s Syndrome was apparently rejected by his parents. The consultant paediatrician ordered he be fed no milk, just water and morphine (which suppresses breathing). The baby died at three days old. The doctor was charged and his defence was that the child was very ill. An AGPAR test used at all births to assess the ‘vitality of a newborn baby’ gave the baby a score of 9 out of 10. The doctor was acquitted on direction of the Judge.

(Above cases sourced from the Human Rights Violations Database, DAA, 2004.)

[Yazman]

Nah sorry comrade but I think you're wrong here.

If we can terminate a womans pregnancy based on the fact her child is disabled in some form, then those who are born disabled will be seen as second-class, or at least the parents of that child will be harrassed for making the (percieved) 'choice' to have a disabled child.

Nobody's talking about forced termination, and in fact termination itself isn't even the only option (hence why I pointed out genetic modification). Secondly, why should people want children be born with genetic defects or diseases when this can be avoided entirely? I can't see a reason for non-religious people to oppose it.


Allowing abortion of disabled babies on grounds of impairment engenders a culture where the lives of disabled people are less worthwhile than those of non-disabled people, making disabled people feel even less valued by society.

Again, I didn't really specify abortion, although such abortion can already be practiced (and has). I don't think that screening out and treating preventable and curable illnesses impacts upon those who are born with such illnesses, though.


In fact this already exisst for post-birth children and I find it really sickening and it's what made me become active in disAbled campaign, take these examples:

Thats all well and good but we're not talking about children. We're talking about fetuses. The examples you raise are more indicative of the larger phenomenon of medical malpractice rather than some sort of "anti-disabled culture." Medical malpractice is a major problem in many places, and has even resulted in mixups causing quadruple amputations for people who weren't even in for an amputation at all.

[Sean]

Moved to Science!

[Le Libérer]

First of all its always the woman's right to have autonomy over her own body in any situation.

Secondly, genetic testing should be accessible especially in cases where the parents have already had children with genetic defects. I know that testing is available to parents in that situation already, but its very costly here in the states. So whether or not it is mandatory, parents should at least have an affordable option to have testing available to them, instead of needless suffering for their baby and themselves.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Nah sorry comrade but I think you're wrong here.

If we can terminate a womans pregnancy based on the fact her child is disabled in some form, then those who are born disabled will be seen as second-class, or at least the parents of that child will be harrassed for making the (percieved) 'choice' to have a disabled child.

If it is possible to screen foetuses for such defects, and parents refuse to do so if given the opportunity, then yes they are responsible for degrading their child's quality of life and they should be criticised for doing so.

Even if genetic screening were universally available at no cost to potential parents, that does not mean that disabled people would be second-class citizens - in fact, genetic screening would mean more resources to support those that do slip through the net, as I doubt genetic screening would be 100% infallible.

Also, not all disabilities are the result of genetics - genetic screening would do nothing to prevent people losing limbs or becoming paralysed due to accident or illness, for example.


Allowing abortion of disabled babies on grounds of impairment engenders a culture where the lives of disabled people are less worthwhile than those of non-disabled people, making disabled people feel even less valued by society.Firstly, it is foetuses that are aborted, not babies. Secondly, that's an argument for more education about disabilities and increased support for the disabled, not against genetic screening, which does not effect those who are already born.


In fact this already exisst for post-birth children and I find it really sickening and it's what made me become active in disAbled campaign, take these examples:How are they remotely relevant? Any foetuses with genetic defects found via screening would be aborted long before viability.

You're comparing apples and apple trees.

[Coggeh]

I agree with genetic screening but it needs to be strictly and I emphasize this Strictly! regulated , their is many reports of mis-interpreted results by half asses private testing agencies which did more harm than good . So if it is to go ahead on a major scale (and it should) then it needs to be like i said very very strictly regulated and monitored.

I agree that it is a personal choice , it may not matter what reasons for it , a woman can decide to have an abortion without being interrogated about it .

However , I just think people who plan for a child and then have an abortion because he/she isn't perfect are fairly up their own asses im my opinion .In a capitalist society this is understandable , its far harder to raise a child with down syndrome than a child without it , I know this from my aunt who struggled for years to find affordable care for her kid , its sickening , however if childcare was free , and their were proper educational , medical and other facilities present then their should not be much of a reason for it .

But like i said , abortion is a choice and if one should want one its better its in a supervised medical clinic then in illegal circumstances where the womens life would be endanger

[Bitter Ashes]

However , I just think people who plan for a child and then have an abortion because he/she isn't perfect are fairly up their own asses im my opinion .In a capitalist society this is understandable , its far harder to raise a child with down syndrome than a child without it , I know this from my aunt who struggled for years to find affordable care for her kid , its sickening , however if childcare was free , and their were proper educational , medical and other facilities present then their should not be much of a reason for it .
That is an excellent point that I hadnt considered Coggeh.
Capitalism punishes the parents of disabled children. Without that detterant, I'm sure that discrimination of parents towards a disabled fetus would drop dramatically and more parents would think about whether they are fit to be a parent to a disabled child, rather than whether they're signing themselves up for a life of financial hardship.

[Lynx]

Can genetic screening be done with embryos?

Monitoring a pregnancy includes looking for birth defects. These can occur without the fetus ever carrying a known genetic defect.

[WhitemageofDOOM]

Well the point I was making was that disabled individuals have had a positive effect on society, so I think it would be a bit wrong for society to dictate that disabled individuals shouldnt be allowed to be born.

So taking a healthy baby and stabbing a fork into it's eyes to blind it is ok?
There's no real difference between that and choosing not to screen out blindness when one is capable to. Your forcing someone to live there lives blind.
Just because disabled people can contribute doesn't mean it was better for them to be disabled than not.


The thing that worries me is the idea that parents who would keep a healthy fetus, would abort a disabled one based solely on predjudice, or misinformation. It almost reminds me of that couple recently who had a screening to ensure that thier kid would grow up straight (they believe the genetic, rather than hormonal, or otherwise, idea on determined sexuality). They said they could cope with a straight child, but not a gay one. Is it much different when a couple says they would accept a healthy child in thier lives, but not a disabled one?

Does it matter? Fetuses aren't people.
What does matter is that someone is going to spend there life with a massive disadvantage that makes that life harder on them.


Can genetic screening be done with embryos?

Yessss, normally widespread genetic screening means embryo selection. Create a dozen or so embryos and pick the best one.

[TC]

If a system of compulsory genetic screening (where fetus' are tested for genetic diseases) were established, do you think the infringement on personal freedoms of the parents would outweigh the benefits (such as quality of life and increased life expectancy) to the unborn child?

Yes.

What a stupid question.

Edit: Oh, i didn't realize that some crypto-Fascists here actually agree with you! Too bad they're discrediting the forum.


Infringement on personal freedoms? What infringement? Who the hell would oppose genetic screening of fetuses? What sort of psycho would want people to be born with fucked up debilitating illnesses?

1. Someone (most people) who prefer to conceive by sexual intercourse rather than in virtro fertilization with embryo screening.

2. Someone who is using in vitro fertilization but prefers to leave embryo selection up to chance.

3. Someone who doesn't want a huge-ass needle shoved through their abdomen (for whatever reason)

4. Someone who would not want to terminate a pregnancy no matter what the result of a genetic test might be (which would defeat the point of embryo screening; some people choose to continue pregnancies after positive tests for genetic illness, but if someone knows in advance that they definitely will continue a pregnancy than there is no point in having the test since its too late to change the result)


5. Someone who has an unusual phenotype regarded as disabled and they want the opportunity to pass it onto their offspring for cultural reasons (i.e. some deaf people).

6. Someone who doesn't trust bourgeois/patriarchal medicine, who doesn't think that pregnancy is an illness that they need to be supervised for, and who wants to conduct it naturally.

7. Someone who values the civil liberties and personal autonomy others, their ability to feel safe in the knowledge that the state will defend their bodies against other's assualts, rather than impose them, whether they're pregnant or not, whether the choices they make about how they handle their bodies are sympathetic or sensible or not.

[Mujer Libre]

Can genetic screening be done with embryos?

Monitoring a pregnancy includes looking for birth defects. These can occur without the fetus ever carrying a known genetic defect.
Sort of.

At the moment, at least here in Australia, most women opt to have screening for Down's syndrome (trisomy 21), combined with screening for trisomy 18 and spina bifida (which isn't purely genetic). While it's screening for genetic conditions, the actual screening is done based on an algorithm that takes maternal age, blood markers (B-HCG, Papp-A, inhibin and one other) and ultrasound parameters into account and calculates a likelihood that the child has Down's Syndrome.

If a woman comes up as high risk she has the option of going for a diagnostic procedure (chorionic villus sampling or amniocentesis) which analyses foetal genetic material (so it can be done. There's a 1/100 or 1.200 risk of miscarriage, but the choice is up to the woman) by karyotyping or FISH to determine the genotype. One of the main problems with these methods is that they take quite long, so if a woman does want to have a termination, she has to have it quite late in the pregnancy, which is riskier for her.

The woman can then choose to continue the pregnancy or have a termination if the test is positive.

So yes, it can be done, but only for a few conditions, and in a fairly non-controversial way that gives parents choices about how to proceed.

I absolutely don't think that screening should be compulsory. The only screening tests we have that aren't horribly invasive test for three conditions. If a person chooses not to have that screening, it's not the end of the world. And putting all pregnant women through more invasive testing to obtain foetal genetic material (with a 1/100 risk of miscarriage!!) or even worse, forcing all women to have IVF, is absolutely unacceptale.

Besides, that type of testing is diagnostic, not screening, and considering the prevalance rates of each severe genetic illness, is a waste of time and resources with an unacceptably high risk and is unethical to say the least.

[Bitter Ashes]

So taking a healthy baby and stabbing a fork into it's eyes to blind it is ok?
There's no real difference between that and choosing not to screen out blindness when one is capable to. Your forcing someone to live there lives blind.
Just because disabled people can contribute doesn't mean it was better for them to be disabled than not.
If it's curable that's totaly different and I already stated that was a positive thing that could be achieved from screening.

Does it matter? Fetuses aren't people.
What does matter is that someone is going to spend there life with a massive disadvantage that makes that life harder on them.It does matter. You cant just seek to assume that you can measure the quality of somebody's life purely on the basis of a disability. You're seeming to be assuming that everyone with these disabilities will somehow inheriantly know what they're losing. If you went deaf today, the impact on your life would be massive as you've had hearing all the way through. Somebody who is born deaf knows nothing else and has great difficulty even understanding the plain concept of hearing, let alone its impact on thier lives. Do these people pine for hearing because they feel thier lives are so cursed? No, the ones that do pine usualy do so because others will rub thier noses in it and it becomes an issue of peer pressure brought on by predjudice and lack of understanding. Bats can hear ultrasound, but you cant. You dont sit at home and think to yourself about how unfortunate you are to be born human because you have been robbed of the chance to hear ultrasound.
So, they are capable of bieng happy. They are capable of bieng workers and helping other workers. What is it then that makes it acceptable to say that thier lives will be worth less than yours?
It could easily be argued that your life is going to be harder if you're going to be born black, or gay, or whatever too. Should we seek to pre-emptivly eradicate these people from humanity too, or should we be focussing on doing the right thing, which is breaking down the predjudices that exist in society instead?

[Glenn Beck]

Genetic testing should be available to every woman who wants it and she should be free to make the choice whether or not to abort a severely defective fetus.

Making it compulsory would just infringe on people's rights and lead to resentment. Most people want healthy children so if it were free then I have no doubt most people would eventually end up going for it anyway once such procedures became widely practiced and accepted.