Designer Baby Given Go-ahead

An anonymous reader writes "A couple in the Australian city of Melbourne has been given the legal go ahead to breed a genetically modified 'designer' baby to cure their terminally ill child."

Won't SONEONE Please Think of the Children

[MBCook]

Now I have to say that I don't like the idea of cloning and genetic enginering (of humans) in the first place. But I'm very focused on the needs and well being of children, so let me ask all of you a few questions. I'm obviously against this, BTW. I think it's cruel and, in fact, just plain EVIL to concieve a child for the purpose of saving someone else's life. That right there is treating the kid like cattle. It's a human being.

1. What happens if this kid's cells don't cure the couple's first kid? That means that they brought a life into the world with the sole intent of curing someone else's life, and it didn't work. Wouldn't that make this kid a failure? How would you like to know that you were concieved to save someone's life and didn't? How would you like to know that you weren't concieved because your parrents wanted a second kid, but because they wanted their first kid to live? It's too bad that their kid is ill, but this is a terrible thing to do to a kid. It's not like they'll be able to hide it from him. It was bad enough when that couple tried to concieve a kid a few years ago for the same reason, but at least they didn't engineer the kid. If your parrents concieved you to save the life of your older sibling, doesn't that clearly imply that they love that other sibling more? What kind of psychological damage will all of this cause to this kid.
2. What if this new kid has health problems. Will they have a 3rd kid to save its life? What's the difference, other than they may have caused this kid's problems, as opposed to it just being a chance of genetics.
3. What if there is a miscarrige? Wouldn't you still get the cells needed if it was far enough along? Is this then a success or a failure? Someone was concieved so that someone could live, but that first person died and the second person still lived. What does that mean? Was the first person worthless? Why not just have an abortion partway through? Then how could one possibly argue that the kid who was aborted wasn't just a "sack of organs"? What kind of person tries to concieves a child knowing full well that they will kill it if they succede? Yes, I'm against abortion, but this is one of the reasons why.
4. If someone kills the new kid before it can save the life of the first kid, is that double homicide? On the one hand, you've doomed the first kid. On the other hand, he's already dead, so can he be killed?
5. May I remind you all of "Brave New World", "Gattaca", and such other works of fiction?
6. Should we even save the first kids life in the first place? This one is a thought expirament, I'm not proposing this (I'd be dead in such a case). One can easily argue that medical technology has rendered evolution mute on our species, which is probably why the rates of just about everything bad (cancer, obiesity, diabetes, heart disease, asethma, allergies, etc.) have been rising over the last century. Should we be allowed to play god (genetic engineering) to help us play god better (by curing the first kid who should, purely by evolution, not survive)?
7. If it's cord cells they're after, why not test the cells from every baby born in a hospital, and ask the parrents of any matching kids if they'll help out by allowing the use of the cord cells. Why even create a second kid?
8. What does it teach their first kid that they concieve another just to save his life? Does it teach him that life is sacred? Or does it teach him that kids are more like a commodity, and that he can be replaced. Does this give his life more or less value?

That said, what do you make of this quote in the article?

"The couple's child is believed to have a terminal illness. Its only chance of survival is to receive a transfusion of umbilical cord blood from a perfectly matched sibling."

They don't even know if the kid has the illness and THEY ARE DOING ALL OF THIS? Am I the only one who sees something wrong with this part ALONE? How do they know that this is the only chance if they don't even know if this kid has this illness?

I realize that this post might seem kind of "troll"-y, but these are serious questions? Even if you are "pro-choice" (a misnomer, but that's another issue), would you agree with the abortion in #3? If you think I'm a troll, please reply to this and give me logical arguements why I'm wrong (I'll just assume the "You're an idiot because you suck" posts) instead of modding me down.

Completely within their rights

[janap]

Screening for genetic disorder is already in place and standard practice in civilised societies. It is common knowledge that the possibility of having a child born with Down's syndrome increases with the age of the mother. Pregnant women over the age of 35 are informed of the increased risk and offered a test. Free of charge. This goes for most western European countries.

Think of this as proper exploitation of available technology and information. No-one is harmed in this specific case, and the parents' concern for their first child speaks well of their ability to love and cherish their coming child, however much screened and whatever the outcome of this. In short, this is a happy situation.

Uhm, no

[BerntB]

We all (you should) know that an IQ test only your ability to score well on an IQ test.

How do we know that?! That is not what the psychologists doing the research say.

See e.g. the part on general intelligence here. [duke.org]

It is a controversial subject [mugu.com] because of social discussions (separate from marxists seeing red when discussing innate mental characteristics).

(Your point is valid for another reason. It is not trivially a good thing to remove "unpopular" features like low intelligence from the gene pool since those features probably have other genetic effects that we might be poorer as humans if they are not in our societies. But if it was my child and I could select for higher intelligence, I would.)

Evolutionary Stagnation

[SilentDissonance]

Whenever this topic comes up, I really can't help but think I may never have been born had this been a reality when I was conceived. I believe that one of the defining things that shapes our personalities as sentient creatures is the various maladies we have.

I don't think this is meddling in the work of a God, either. I believe this goes against the very processes of evolution. If we're picking the defining factors for what is good, rather than the environment we exist in, we will stagnate on the evolutionary ladder. Species that can't adapt to their environment tend to fail rather quickly.

Of course, the other birth that may never have taken place is your own.

--Coda from the deleted scenes of Gattaca [imdb.com]

Re:Uhm, no

[Mr.Intel]

It is not trivially a good thing to remove "unpopular" features like low intelligence from the gene pool since those features probably have other genetic effects that we might be poorer as humans if they are not in our societies.

Yeah, features like being able to dig ditches and operate heavy machinery. If we were all smart, there would be no room for eveyone in the smart jobs. Unless of course we use our smarts and create robots to do the dumb jobs a la animatrix.

Disclaimer: This is not my view, but is one that is alive and well.

Re:Uhm, no

[Mr.Intel]

I was thinking more like this hypothetical case that might show up in ten years:
Some common combinations of genes might give a high chance of some mental disease. But also a high chance of artistic talent. Would it be worth losing those artists to save some people from mental disease?

Good point. Another one would be concentrated leadership skills tied with megolomania. It is too easy for people in general to want their kids to "have it all" and they would want to take this to extremes. I am someone who dislikes governmental control in any form, so to embrace this technology with the caveat of regulation is a very scary proposition. I would rather see the technology only used to cure existing people as in the linked story, rather than to design people. But then again, I am a card carrying religous freak so I am not to be trusted...

Re:Uhm, no

[Mr.Intel]

Clearly you and I are on different ideological grounds, but that does not preclude us from agreeing.

There must be some limit for parents' rights to fsck the lives of their children!! Children are people; it is illegal to rape them, too.

Granted it is illegal to rape them. Why is it illegal to rape them? If we use your arguments, the idea of society and social norms (like rape, murder, etc.) comes from induced mental programming by parents, teachers, peers, etc. What if the opposite norms were induced? (Rape and murder are acceptable...) As a person living in that kind of society would you have the same views? This kind of relativistic (and circular) thinking is flawed. You can't tell me that there must be a limit on how parents teach their children by pointing out that society (a product of parental teaching) mandates this.

Cure what!?!? The point of my example was that it is hard to decide what should be cured.

Lots of things. Down's syndrome, heart disease, palsey, alsheimer's, Parkinson's, etc. Genetic screening and genetic manipulation are whay is being discussed in the article and can cure the above diseases/conditions.

I consider religion to be insane ideas that you can inflict on children if you indoctrinate them early enough.

To each his own, but you cannot enforce your views on other people, just like I cannot make you believe in God.

Something some religious people would do.

How do you know what all religious people would do? Sweeping generalizations like that are at the root of most hate in the world. I don't pretend to believe that all religious people are great, but that does not make the reverse true.