In article <940116193009113 at bbs.puc.edu>, bryan.ness at bbs.puc.edu (Bryan
Ness) wrote:
>> Bryan Ness
> Assistant Professor of Biology
> Pacific Union College
>bness at bbs.puc.edu>> * OLX 2.1 TD * Back Up My Hard Drive? I Can't Find The Reverse Switch!
One of the motivations for couples to join in vitro programs is rejection
from adoption agencies for one of the myriad reasons possible. Adoption
agencies have very strict criteria for deciding eligibility, and age is one
of these factors. Such agencies are stricter than any panel of would-be in
vitro ethicists, because an accepted framework exists and historical
knowledge of the kinds of abuse potentially awaiting an adoptee well
established. So the majority of these people are seeking the only recourse
possible.
I agree that wanting your "own" children represents some kind of genetic
arrogance and deep seated predjudice ( surely an -ism of some kind) ; the
big problem with this is that the off-spring are only 1/2 genetically yours
anyway, especially if the other half comes from an anonymous egg or sperm
donor. Why not subscribe to an ideal donor system ( sure to get underway
in California) where both egg and sperm have excellent pedigrees, just like
horses. Sure you can carry the child, and the child is yours, but with a
certificate of genetic merit, and a free factory warranty. Such mind
bending things will come- and worse, you better get used to it. Try this
for size.
If you can cure a disease, isn't that great! What if you can completely
eliminate it? No-body objected to getting rid of smallpox by world
immunisation. What about getting rid of cancer? How? What if we have a
world genetic therapy, give a whole new generation an extra copy of the p53
gene (silent while the original copy works, but activatable by external
drug when the p53 is mutated), so that the majority of cancer is completely
eliminated? Does this fullfil the Hyppocratic oath? Is it ethical to save
millions of people from cancer in advance? [This is an example -I dont
want a lecture on cancer genetics]. For the first time, an intelligent
being is starting to comprehend the machinery of itself- why shouldn't
humans divorce themselves from biology? Dont respond by saying that its
un-natural- every action of a human is natural (since we are part of this
world) and unnatural at the same time and always has been.
--
Morrison, Garvan Institute of Medical Research,
St Vincents' Hospital, Sydney, Australia.
