Choosing to Carry Only Retinoblastoma-Free Babies
May 14, 2006 by admin
Filed under Diseases & Conditions
I can see how choosing in vitro fertilization when one has no fertility problems can make sense when it means a woman can get the embryos genetically tested.
A woman who carries the retinoblastoma gene (abbreviated as “Rb”) did exactly this. She chose to get the embryo that did not carry the Rb gene implanted into her womb so she may have the baby.
On the one hand, some activist groups are claiming destruction of embryos that had a right to life. On the other hand, those with family history of devastating genetic predispositions are happy to have a choice. Those who are parents of children born with cancer or other genetic challenges could perhaps empathize with this woman’s choice.
Given the genetic make that I have and could be inherited by my children, honestly, I think what she did was justifiable given the situation. I mean, it’s not always right to “interfere” with life and choose who lives and dies, but I also cannot bear to think that my children (whom I love so much) would suffer if there is a choice not too. It is clearly a clash of morality and faith vs science.
Even though I understand why the activists claim what they do, I have to agree with you, Justice. If given the option, I’d do the same thing if I were in that woman’s shoes.
Technically we can argue that by natural selection some of us are meant to die of heart attacks and cancers, and it would be “against nature” to try to prolong our lives by means of treatment, surgery, or other interventions.
Although my argument may be overly simplistic in these emotionally charged controversies.
“Technically we can argue that by natural selection some of us are meant to die of heart attacks and cancers,…”
true. but then again, if i was 80 and have lived life, i’d probably be more than ready to die. BUT what about if you’re still young (around 45-50)—should we just give-up to the sickness just like that?
hmmm, death and the right to live? take for ex. life insurances. why do we take it? it’s not because we want to protect ourselves, but its to protect those whom we’ll leave one day and live. why isn’t anyone against that concept wherein somebody dies for someone to continue living?
sorry jane, just my scattered thoughts. i just think that sometimes, morality has to back-up a bit.
I see what you’re saying.
Life-and-death discussions do involve moral considerations. Moral considerations do come with a level of bias (i.e. when is really a “good time” to die, and judgments about this will differ culturally and socially).
Maybe this is why medicine keeps going back to the “quality of life” argument. You can fight and be kept alive at age 45-50, but what if you are bed-ridden, need constant care, and in constant pain? On the same lines, there are some clinicians who are now advocating aggressively treating some cancers even when the patient is 70 years old and considered “elderly” because the patient may easily have another 10 good years ahead of him or her.
Not sure if this is veering way off the pRB genetic baby post – interesting topic though
haha actually we ended up talking about “morality VS science”…anyway, this was a good topic to think about.
have a nice day.