Nigel Morrison wrote:
NM>One of the motivations for couples to join in vitro programs is rejection
NM>from adoption agencies for one of the myriad reasons possible. Adoption
NM>agencies have very strict criteria for deciding eligibility, and age is one
NM>of these factors. Such agencies are stricter than any panel of would-be in
NM>vitro ethicists, because an accepted framework exists and historical
NM>knowledge of the kinds of abuse potentially awaiting an adoptee well
NM>established. So the majority of these people are seeking the only recourse
NM>possible.
I am well aware of the difficulty of getting a child by adoption.
My wife and I experienced some difficulty in conceiving our own
son and for awhile considered adoption as a possible alternative.
We soon found that very few newborns were actually available.
They could be gotten, but the waiting lists were long. I am not
opposed to IVF on general moral grounds. I am not even opposed
based on sheer cost, but I do have questions about how much
should be spent on such things. I suppose if a couple has the
money they can certainly spend it as they like. Research money
is in short supply for so many things though, so I wonder whether
it might better be spent on something else.
NM>If you can cure a disease, isn't that great! What if you can completely
NM>eliminate it? No-body objected to getting rid of smallpox by world
NM>immunisation. What about getting rid of cancer? How? What if we have a
NM>world genetic therapy, give a whole new generation an extra copy of the p53
NM>gene (silent while the original copy works, but activatable by external
NM>drug when the p53 is mutated), so that the majority of cancer is completely
NM>eliminated? Does this fullfil the Hyppocratic oath? Is it ethical to save
NM>millions of people from cancer in advance? [This is an example -I dont
NM>want a lecture on cancer genetics]. For the first time, an intelligent
NM>being is starting to comprehend the machinery of itself- why shouldn't
NM>humans divorce themselves from biology? Dont respond by saying that its
NM>un-natural- every action of a human is natural (since we are part of this
NM>world) and unnatural at the same time and always has been.
I like your example. The trick of course is getting that switch
installed in such a way that it controls the p53 gene. Your
comments have made me think of things from a little different
perspective. What is really very different about culturing cells
and experimenting with embryos? I don't know if I really have an
answer to that, but it is worth thinking about. If doing
research using embryos can help us cure serious genetic diseases
than maybe, moral objections aside, we should proceed.
Of course, there is a scarier side to this whole embryo cloning
thing too. Someone like Hitler could certainly abuse such
techniques to horrible consequences. We need to be sure that
such research is carefully regulated.
Bryan Ness
Assistant Professor of Biology
Pacific Union College
bness at bbs.puc.edu
* OLX 2.1 TD * This tagline is umop apisdn
