[Newsbot]

Title: Three-parent embryos unnerve ethicists
Category: Health
Posted By: saturn_656
Date: 2012-09-19 11:07:59

[Canadian_Mind]

Or people with those kinds of diseases could simply not produce children at all?

[Unsound]

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

Or people with those kinds of diseases could simply not produce children at all?

Although the largest part of me agrees with you here, there is a small part of me that says I've already had perfectly healthy kids so it's easy for me to make that choice for someone else, or rather, to deny someone else the chance to have children of their own.

[CanadianJeff]

With world overpopulation becoming a serious problem maybe this kind of thing isn't as needed as some of us would like to think.

That and there's already a solution for these people if they want to have kids around. It's called adoption and the process should be made easier for those who wish to undertake it.

[BartSimpson]

CanadianJeff CanadianJeff:

With world overpopulation becoming a serious problem maybe this kind of thing isn't as needed as some of us would like to think.

That and there's already a solution for these people if they want to have kids around. It's called adoption and the process should be made easier for those who wish to undertake it.

Malthusian claptrap.

[Brenda]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

CanadianJeff CanadianJeff:

With world overpopulation becoming a serious problem maybe this kind of thing isn't as needed as some of us would like to think.

That and there's already a solution for these people if they want to have kids around. It's called adoption and the process should be made easier for those who wish to undertake it.

Malthusian claptrap.

Translation for ESL-ers: Load of bull?

[CanadianJeff]

Just to save some folks the trouble the Malthusian trap (not claptrap) is where population increases at an exponentially faster rate then technology. It creates a trap where most people income never increases until the industrial age where technological advancement exponentially increases.

Of course this is making a correlation=causation argument with poverty and technology.

[Zipperfish]

You know what unnerves me...ethicists. I really don't see the point. I understand studying ethics--how they come about, what the nature of ethics are, what the difference is between ethics and morals.

But they seem to have adopted this new role as advocates of particular political viewpoints that seems to be infecting science at a viral rate these days.

[Dragon-Dancer]

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

Or people with those kinds of diseases could simply not produce children at all?

It's easy to say but not to easy for these couples to do. While I agree with CanadianJeff that the easiest solution is to adopt so you avoid the complication of passing on these bad genes many couples really want to have children who are biologically linked to them. The three parent option seems like it could be a good option in this case. That is if they can ensure it doesn't create too many of it's own problems.

[ShepherdsDog]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

You know what unnerves me...ethicists. I really don't see the point. I understand studying ethics--how they come about, what the nature of ethics are, what the difference is between ethics and morals.

But they seem to have adopted this new role as advocates of particular political viewpoints that seems to be infecting science at a viral rate these days.

That's just double plus good.

[BeaverFever]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

You know what unnerves me...ethicists. I really don't see the point. I understand studying ethics--how they come about, what the nature of ethics are, what the difference is between ethics and morals.

But they seem to have adopted this new role as advocates of particular political viewpoints that seems to be infecting science at a viral rate these days.

I'm not sure I understand your point. Are you saying there's no need to consider ethics in medicine? Discussing the ethical implications of something is unnnecessary politicisization?

Many professions necessarily examine and discuss the ethical implicaitons of development their field of work. I can't think of field where ethics are more imporant than in medicine. It is not the ethicists who politicise the issue, its the interest groups, politicians, me, YOU, and everyone else who makes it a political issue.

[Thanos]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

You know what unnerves me...ethicists. I really don't see the point. I understand studying ethics--how they come about, what the nature of ethics are, what the difference is between ethics and morals.

But they seem to have adopted this new role as advocates of particular political viewpoints that seems to be infecting science at a viral rate these days.

It's important in order to avoid any of the sci-fi types of nightmares that might erupt if this type of biological experimentation becomes a repetitive occurance. I'm rarely in agreement with the Vatican but it was a solid blow struck for the good guys when they said a few years ago that laws had to be made in order to ensure, because human in-vitros/clones/whatever were in possession of souls as much as any "natural" human is, these "artificial" people must be granted full human rights. The nightmare becomes reality when some rich pricks have their own clones to use as organ banks to keep themselves alive into perpetutity. Or when some genocidal asshole in North Korea, China, or Iran, or on Wall Street going by the social Darwinist manner that those bastards apparently think with, grows his own genetically-altered army. Getting everything codified in advance of these inevitable events is for the best as anything that could be so horribly abused should be confronted with a legal and moral line-in-the-sand before things are allowed to go too far.

It's only sci-fi until it actually happens, unfortunately.

[Zipperfish]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

You know what unnerves me...ethicists. I really don't see the point. I understand studying ethics--how they come about, what the nature of ethics are, what the difference is between ethics and morals.

But they seem to have adopted this new role as advocates of particular political viewpoints that seems to be infecting science at a viral rate these days.

I'm not sure I understand your point. Are you saying there's no need to consider ethics in medicine? Discussing the ethical implications of something is unnnecessary politicisization?

Many professions necessarily examine and discuss the ethical implicaitons of development their field of work. I can't think of field where ethics are more imporant than in medicine. It is not the ethicists who politicise the issue, its the interest groups, politicians, me, YOU, and everyone else who makes it a political issue.

Read some Margaret Somerville, an "ethicist." Her case against same-sex marriage, for example. Valid views, but ultimately, an opinion that isn't any more "scientific" than my opinion on the subject.

If Margaret Somerville sn't an advocate for her politics, I'll eat my hat. If I wore one. Which I don't.

[BeaverFever]

Well, but can you paint all "ethicists" with such a broad brush? Somerville is an academic who appears to focus on theory, whereas many (most?) other ethicists actually work in the field - for hospitals, consulting firms, private sector, etc. and focus on the ethics of actual policies and practices in the real world. For example, when should a hospital seek to pull the plug on a patient or when should they administer treatment to non-cooperative patient against their will?

In this story, the "ethicists" work for the arms-lenth IVF regulator and far from editorializing or telling others what to think, they are launching a public consultation to solicit public opoinion on the issue.

[Zipperfish]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

Well, but can you paint all "ethicists" with such a broad brush? Somerville is an academic who appears to focus on theory, whereas many (most?) other ethicists actually work in the field - for hospitals, consulting firms, private sector, etc. and focus on the ethics of actual policies and practices in the real world. For example, when should a hospital seek to pull the plug on a patient or when should they administer treatment to non-cooperative patient against their will?

In this story, the "ethicists" work for the arms-lenth IVF regulator and far from editorializing or telling others what to think, they are launching a public consultation to solicit public opoinion on the issue.

I suppose people hire ethicists. But then they hire Feng Shui specialists too. I don't think Somerville "focuses on theory." I think she has a certain set of beliefs to which she applies her expertise to justify.

You're right though. I shouldn't paint with such a broad brush. I had a good ethics instructor once, who taught us how to frame dilemmas with others in such a way as to come to a common understanding.

That's what they should be doing. As opposed to being moral oracles (moracles?)