Human Responsibility

       Recognizing that we as the human race have created and discovered so may different things that are instrumental to our health and well-being now, we continue to pillage on in the dark to solve many more mysteries and to chart the diminishing unknown. The field of genetics and its link to diseases and possible cures is such an uncharted territory and to launch into a lengthy project of experimentation would cost much time and money. The unanswered questions about whether scientists should be able to pinpoint the genes of various diseases are controversial. Should scientists inform parents if their fetus has certain traits that are linked to a certain disease that does not have a cure yet? Is it their choice? Who should fund the research, if anyone, and how should it be monitored? Should people be informed it there is still no antidote? Where will the experimentation stop/where are the boundaries? 
         In response to at least some of these question which have no real right or wrong answer, will we, as a nation allow the diagnosis of a doctor control what we do with our children? All too often, the answer is overwhelmingly yes. "It could increase abortions for reasons that have little to do with medical issues and more to do with parental preferences for traits in children." http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/07/health/tests-of-parents-are-used-to-map-genes-of-a-fetus.html?src=me&ref=general
Are we that shallow that we only care for things the way we want them? How will the world turnout if we control the future now with our decisions of how we would like our children to turn out? Is there such thing as de-diversification? Who would regulate the proceedings when/if they come out and are not to expensive for an average person to have?
           At the same time that knowledge without being able to do anything about it can be very painful. Imagine knowing that your future son/daughter is going to have Marfan Syndrome, and then also acknowledge that there is no "cure" for this genetic mutation. This is not far from what parents today have had to deal with and those who have had it before the disease was found. We didn't die, we survived, we lived. Before there was a polio vaccine, people were treated and then overjoyed when Jonas Salk created the vaccination. But even then, it was not yet mass produced and available to the public. It was a luxury that some parents could not afford. So is this going to be a parallel situation, where those who are rich will simply abort the "problem" children before they are born while the lower class has to "suffer" through loving them and getting them the care they need. This is not the only possible course of action, some say that ignorance is bliss and it can be argued that the needy are what makes the world go 'round. They teach us patience, selflessness and kindness; caring for someone who may not be able to do it themselves is a rite that every human being should shoulder equally. Which is also why I believe that it should be everyone's job to pitch in for the cure to these genetic diseases. 
            All in all, if we are going to research and find all kinds of new discoveries concerning genetics, perhaps we should create some boundaries for ourselves before we even begin. Yes, this is exciting and this is the future, we can choose our children not to have diseases or to have there personality traits that we like, but the ethics behind this are numerous and very arguable on both sides.

What's Correct?

This week’s discussion was predominantly focused on the controversial issues revolving around the phenomena of sperm donations and how parents sometimes choose whether or not to keep their child simply based on the fact of whether or not they’ll grow up to be “beautiful” .  Towards the end of the class though, the whole topic of basing the whole abortion decision merely on trifling aspects was the most commotion-generating topic.  Before this whole discussion, when I heard the term abortion, I usually associated it with tragic events culminating to this process such as incest or rape. But, as we got into the fact that in our day and age the majority of abortions are simply due to insignificant factors such as potential appearances - well let’s just say that now it’s apparent why older generations criticize the younger generations so much.  Personally, I see it as alarming that parents choose to terminate a life simply because the child is not what the parents are looking for. I would completely understand if everything was different – if the decision was based on more serious factors. Although I would understand, I completely agree with Daniel when he opinionates that he cannot bring himself to see a mother having in an abortion based on the fact that the child might be born with a disorder or another serious problem. To me personally, all the previously mentioned reasons for abortion are not substantial enough. Why would you not give the baby a chance to live? Why would you end any hopes of bringing in another being into the world? Should insignificant aspects such as appearances and disadvantages dictate whether you are to live or die? What if you were the baby? Would you still essentially terminate a life based on these trivial factors? How do these outweigh the wonders of living? Even if you were truly unwilling to care for such a blessing, there are other alternatives. Why not simply put the baby up for abortion? I’m fairly sure that there is a mother out there, who because she was unfortunately unable to engender a child, who is more than willing to care for a baby. An abortion is not something that should be taken lightly. 

Issues Concerning Sperm Donation

          This week we talked about infectious disease and somehow got side tracked into talking about sperm donation, and how people chose whether to abort their kids more for the fact that they won't be what they want aesthetically, rather than for reasons like rape. This then led to the question of whether or not donated sperm should be tested to see if it is positive for certain traits like diseases or just aesthetic traits.  I personally feel that the government shouldn't force themselves into paying for all these donations to be tested. I feel this way because we have so many problem with money in the government now that I don't feel it would be smart for us to put the financial burden of funding thousands of genetic tests for these donations. Instead, I think the people that want the donations should pay for the tests themselves if they are very concerned about what the donation is positive for. While I would feel sympathy for those that cannot afford this testing, I just don't feel it would be wise for the government to get involved in trying to pay for testing the donation they hope to get. In addition to this, if they cannot afford the testing, maybe they wouldn't be able to afford to have a family as well.
          Another issue I would like to talk about is the issue of whether or not someone should abort a child because he or she has been diagnosed with a mental disorder. While I understand that it would take great sacrifice to raise a child with a mental disorder, I cannot bring myself to see aborting a child because they would have that kind of problem. For starters, just because they would have that problem, it wouldn't mean that they will have no life worth living. In addition to this, if you really feel like you cannot raise a child like that, then you can always put the child up for adoption. Finally, I want to address the fact that I do understand that there are great sacrifices in raising a child with mental disorders, but I cannot bring myself to feel that it is alright to abort that child because of those sacrifices when you can put the baby up for adoption.
          I just want to conclude by saying these are my personal opinions and that I am not trying to influence anyone else's ideas or to start a problem or conflict with other people here who feel differently.

Is Knowledge Always Power

          In this day and age invasive procedures and modern technologies, also known as scientific progress, have helped cure diseases, treat medical anomalies, and furthered life expectancies. But, along with all these benefits, comes a great deal of responsibility and complication. Recently, researchers have developed methods by which they are able to determine the genome of a fetus by obtaining only a blood sample from the mother and saliva sample from the father. The process is deemed as “impractical and not affordable enough for now”, but in 3-5 years may be commonly used and inexpensive.  Now, although this procedure is a revolutionary discovery, the results may render ethical and moral problems for potential parents of the fetus.

         DNA sequencing results can be used to highlight whether diseases or genetic abnormalities are present in a fetus. I think that this knowledge is advantageous, but incredibly harmful at the same time. The DNA results will allow potential parents to be aware if their child will be born with any defects and allow them to prepare for the process of dealing with whatever lies ahead (benefit) or the results may enable the potential parents to want to abort the baby because they don’t want to deal with a defective fetus (advantage). I understand that research is used to further knowledge, but maybe some things are just meant to be unknown. I know that this type of research will allow people to change their fates, but it will also increase the abortion rate. Perhaps many would argue aborting a fetus because it has a Mendelian disorder (i.e. tay sachs disease, marfan syndrome, etc) is superficial and that the parents of that fetus are selfish because they do not want to bring themselves to take care of a child who is destined to a life filled with obstacles. But the other side would argue that it is a very difficult job to take care of a child with such medical disorders and that they would rather not deal with a life of having to take care of a 24/7 dependent child (which is understandable).

               This is an incredibly sensitive issue and I applaud those who are able to remain objective when trying to make a decision based on the knowledge that is handed to them by a simple test. No life is inconsequential, but a fetus that does not have the ability to sustain life independently after exiting the womb may not be seen as necessary for some people, thus they might choose to abort the fetus. Aborting fetuses that suffer from disorders says something about humanity; it doesn’t show that humans necessarily lack empathy, but it does say that the decisions of humans have become significantly altered by the knowledge obtained from a doctor’s results.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/07/health/tests-of-parents-are-used-to-map-genes-of-a-fetus.html?src=me&ref=general

Consider This

On Tuesday, we talked about a few things that got myself thinking about alternatives and effects.  The potential aftermath must also be taken into account. 

We talked about the ability to choose characteristics for embryos and the possibility of regulating the selection process.  It is understandable why parents would go through all the testing and sorting to ensure the best quality life for their children and to give their children the best opportunities in life.  Although it would be beneficial since laws would prevent the uprising of a superior race and the abortion of fetus deemed “not favorable”, I feel that creating rules would not limit the ability to choose the physical characteristics and talents a child would have.  Many families, especially those who can afford it, would find alternatives in other countries.  An example of this was during the time preceding the Supreme Court Case Roe vs. Wade where women were not allowed to have abortions in the US but migrated to Mexico where abortions were not regulated.  The same would happen today if we discouraged parents from having their designer babies.

We also talked about genetic screening to see if people are carrier for different diseases and cancers.  However, while we mainly talked about screening of teenagers and adults as a result of family history, we forgot to mention the screening of pregnant women.  These screenings determine if the fetus is born with life threatening diseases or with genetic mutations and abnormalities.  This has thus greatly impacted the rate of abortion (1 out of 3 women will have at least 1 abortion, so in our class, 2 of us). The increased ability to get rid of the child we do not want actually negatively impacts the number of carriers for a certain disease.  Take for example a couple where both the male and the female are carriers for Tay-Sachs.  If we follow the Punnett Square logic, there is a 25% chance the baby will be born with Tay-Sachs and a 75% chance the baby will be born without Tay-Sachs.  But there is a 50% chance the baby will be a carrier and a 25% chance the baby will not be a carrier. If we compare this to a couple where one is a carrier and the other is not, there is a 50/50 chance of being a carrier and not being a carrier.  Suddenly, it seems like everyone has the gene to pass to his or her child!

(I would also like to comment on Mr. Bonamo’s question on insurance companies paying for genetic testing that he mentioned in his post.  With the introduction of genetic testing and screening, people would be more curious to know if they are a carrier for diseases.  As a result, insurance companies would be more selective about who they wish to insure and are likely to deny a person coverage if he or she has the oinka genes for cancer.  Whether or not this person actually has cancer would not matter anymore, but the potential to have cancer based on genetics is more important).

Biomedical Issues that arise with Fetal Genomes

                 Although I was absent on Tuesday, reading Mr.Bonamo's post and the links he put up initiated many questions in my mind. The ability to take  blood specimen, prenatal tissue, or fraternal saliva to recreate the genome of a fetus is an incredible breakthrough in the scientific community, especially when DNA sequencing technology is becoming faster and more affordable.
                  However, such advancements bring on a test of biomedical ethics. As mentioned in the NYTimes article, the acquirement of fetal cells through invasive testing can potentially cause a miscarriage. Although the chances of this possibility are not likely, I don't think a lot of parents would be willing to take the risk. Another issue that comes up is using the information gained from a fetal genome responsibly. What about couples that concieve a child through in-vitro fertilization? With the new technology available, they can have the embryo genetically tested for diseases. And what if they find out the embryo is positive for Down's Syndrome or Tay-Sachs disease? They might not want that embryo and move on to the next. And it can get worse; what if couples want a baby with certain traits? Blonde hair and blue eyes? There's nothing wrong with wanting such traits, but is it ethical to be that selective and have the right to choose between traits? If that were to happen, imagine what would happen to diversity and randomization in America. No parent want their child to have a disease or disorder, but it doesn't make it okay to reject a child that isn't seemingly perfect. So if DNA technology was abused and parents did get to choose what kind of baby they wanted, then for each rejection of an embryo, a life would be lost. Actually, many lives would be lost because that one fetus, that one child, is equal to however many generations it would have preceded. And to add on to that loss, abortion rates would certainly rise.
                  My point is, DNA sequencing and the recreation of whole genomes can be as helpful as they can be dangerous. With great success comes great responsibility.  I think if such techniques were made available to the public in 3-5 years, the issues I mentioned above should be taken into consideration and rules should be instilled to assure that the technology is not abused.

Infectious Diseases, Genetic Testing, and Medical Ethics

(Many thanks to Nazifa for these articles)

Dealing with infections diseases and advancements in human genetics provides several questions with regard to medical ethics.

For example, there is an uptick in an infectious disease known as Chagas disease, that can be fatal and that is now spread through mosquitoes.  http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/science/spread-of-chagas-is-called-the-new-aids-of-the-americas.html?_r=1  The question this provokes, similar to our West Nile virus problem, is whether the need for health safety overrides concerns about environmental and ecological damage in using insecticides or other pest control methods.  In addition, from where will the resources come to protect populations in countries with limited resources?

We now have the power to do several kinds of genetic testing on humans.  In fact, diseases can be found to have genetic foundations.  http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/18/science/many-rare-mutations-may-underpin-diseases.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1338649721-zq+0oFL98KtbvNZvroVprA  Will we (or insurance companies) foot the bill for expensive genetic testing for diseases, if we do not yet have the ability to treat these genetic defects and prevent the diseases?  In a similar vein, since some diseases are passed from parents to children, untested donated sperm can give a woman a baby with a genetic defect.  http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/15/health/in-sperm-banks-a-matrix-of-untested-genetic-diseases.html?pagewanted=all  Should genetic testing of sperm and egg donations and/or donors be uniform and/or mandatory?  Should the offspring allowed from one donor be limited to a specific number?  Should potential parents be able to make selection of sperm, eggs, and/or fetuses on the basis of genetic test results?  Should this be limited to health-related characteristics, or be expanded to include other traits such as race, sex, intelligence, height, etc.?

Finally, it has been determined that both warfare and contact sports result in similar brain injuries: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/17/us/brain-disease-is-found-in-veterans-exposed-to-bombs.html?pagewanted=all.  Should military personnel be better protected from these injuries, or is the known inherent risk of injury or death implicit in military enrollment enough to cover these brain injuries?  Put otherwise, is modern warfare so dangerous to make it incompatible with the human condition?  (Advances in war-zone medical treatment have decreased deaths but increased casualties, meaning that far more soldiers survive with far more serious injuries than previously.)  Also, should intense contact sports, such as football, be limited to older athletes; should they be banned entirely; or is this concern just a sign of our increasing softness as a society?  Remember, in the old days football and hockey players didn't even wear helmets.

Lots of questions, which will hopefully spur lots of discussion for our last week together.  See you Tuesday.

Can Egypt Truly Become Liberal?

                Can democracy truly be implemented in an Islamic society? That is the question I ultimately drew from the video we watched on Tuesday. This here video served two purposes. First, to repudiate the American media's general view of the Middle East, bringing a much needed sense of diversification to an overly generalized topic. Second, to shed light on the political situation that is currently happening in Egypt. As of right now, Egypt is nearing the ends of revolution - that is to say - a political revolution. After President Hosni Mubarak was removed from offices, the country has endured fifteen months of militaristic rule. The fifteen months have been filled with nothing but protests, economic crises and just general anarchy that have resulted from the soon-to-be occupied political seat. But as Harvey Dent said, "The night is darkest just before the dawn". The darkness left behind by Mubarak's dictatorship is now being followed by one thing: Democracy. An idea that is almost seemingly inconceivable is now taking hold of the country. For the first time ever, the citizens have the right to elect their own president despite the unpredictability of the election: the polls are not reliable and the looming threat of a run-off. Despite the cry for reformation, two of the running candidates are former ministers from ex-President Mubarak's former government. This already poses a threat to the newly found sense of potential democracy. And even more pressing is the idea of an amalgamation between Islam and liberalized views. Being a country that has inherently been under strict religious regulation for the last few thousand years, it is no wonder that opinions are divided. Change is terrifying but sometimes it is inevitable, especially when the views of the young contrast those of the old. Although some might argue that democracy is impossible for a country that intertwines religion and government so closely, they are forgetting that our democracy is a reinterpretation of the one used so long ago in ancient Greece. In fact, religion has long dominated politics. A religious government may in fact serve to keep the people united, especially in a time as trying as this.