Rare Genetic Disorder Treated in Womb For the First Time (nature.com) 30
A two-and-a-half-year-old girl shows no signs of a rare genetic disorder, after becoming the first person to be treated for the motor-neuron condition while in the womb. Nature: The child's mother took the gene-targeting drug during late pregnancy, and the child continues to take it. The "baby has been effectively treated, with no manifestations of the condition," says Michelle Farrar, a paediatric neurologist at UNSW Sydney in Australia. The results were published in the New England Journal of Medicine yesterday. The child was conceived with a genetic condition known as spinal muscular atrophy, which affects motor neurons that control movement, and leads to progressive muscle weakening.
About one in every 10,000 births have some form of the condition -- making it a leading genetic cause of death in infants and children. In its most severe form, as in the case of this child, individuals lack both copies of the SMN1 gene, and have only one or two copies of a neighbouring gene, SMN2, that partially compensates for that deficiency. As a result, the body does not produce enough of the protein required for maintaining motor neurons in the spinal cord and brainstem. This protein is most important in the second and third trimesters, and the first few months of life. Babies with severe disease don't usually live past their third birthday.
About one in every 10,000 births have some form of the condition -- making it a leading genetic cause of death in infants and children. In its most severe form, as in the case of this child, individuals lack both copies of the SMN1 gene, and have only one or two copies of a neighbouring gene, SMN2, that partially compensates for that deficiency. As a result, the body does not produce enough of the protein required for maintaining motor neurons in the spinal cord and brainstem. This protein is most important in the second and third trimesters, and the first few months of life. Babies with severe disease don't usually live past their third birthday.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
How Buddhist. Shove your religion up your ass.
Re: (Score:2)
A fetus is not a person.
While I agree with this, I do have to qualify that with a fetus is a _potential_ future person. One that the parents may have a huge amount of personal investment in. As such, dismissive statements like yours are not particularly helpful. Abortion should be a choice, but ideally a rarely used one. Maybe none of it matters, maybe everything humans think and feel is completely irrelevant, but that's just nihilism. Nihilism, in my view is a self-defeating philosophy because, if there's no point to anything, th
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
We could shoot you in the base of the skull right now as well and there would be no doubt about the long term consequences. Who knows what your tomorrow will bring you might get cancer and face a life time of suffering!
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I'm a person. That's murder. A fetus is not a person.
Re: (Score:2)
A fetus is not a person.
You say that with such certainty, but an unborn human is still considered a "fetus" at 38 weeks, and aside from just not having stepped out of the womb yet, that's a "person" for any reasonable definition of the word. The truth, such as it is, is that sometime between "implantation" and "birth" the "clump of cells" becomes a "person." Reasonable people can disagree just when in the process that occurs, but it's unreasonable to state that is at either the very beginning or the very end.
Re: (Score:1)
They are still not people at 38 weeks, not until they're born. They're definitely not a person at 11 weeks, when amniocentesis can be performed. Only religious nuts go for personhood at 11 weeks.
Meanwhile, anybody carrying the genes has options (from ACOG):
You can get pregnant and then have amniocentesis or chorionic villus sampling (CVS) to see if the fetus has SMA.
You can get pregnant using in vitro fertilization (IVF). You can use your own eggs
Re: (Score:2)
If you know you're a carrier, genetically modding your fetus with unknown possible side effects seems a pretty fucking bad option from this list.
I should first note two things, first is that you don't include this treatment on the list itself. Secondly, if it were an option on the list, it would be a sub-option of "You can get pregnant and then have amniocentesis or chorionic villus sampling (CVS) to see if the fetus has SMA." and you don't include the other sub-options which are to get an abortion or to bring the baby to term and let them suffer and die or alternately hope for a miracle which is basically the same thing anyway.
As for the treatment,
Re: (Score:2)
As an adult with SMA, I find that very offensive. Even if you think that is joke, it is not funny and just wrong.
Re: (Score:1)
You're a person. A fetus is not a person.
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
I wouldn't be if my parents listened to scum like you
Re: (Score:2)
Did your parents know they were carriers and then go ahead and have you? Seems they knowingly fucked you over for your entire life.
Re: (Score:2)
The condition was discovered in the late 1800s. Genetic testing was discovered in the mid 90s. There may be a family history of the disease. So I wonder if they knew. If not, it's a tragedy you all suffer. If they did or if they had the option to know and decided not to check, it's a tragedy you suffer that they could have prevented. If it was type 0 or 1, you would not be alive. Type 2 is a relatively short and disabled life. Type 3 and 4 are not so awful.
There's a reason genetic counselors exist.
Re: (Score:2)
A pity your parents didn't economize more.
Re: (Score:1)
Where did all the incel haters of women's rights come from? Oh yeah. It's slashdot. Incel City.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Uh hu.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know if you're aware of this, but much of the criticism you're getting is from Slashdotters who actually tend to be pro-choice and in favor of women's rights and against misogyny. Considering that your handle is "themiddleroad", you seem to be taking a very extreme position that even avidly pro-choice people can't support. You're obviously ignoring the fact that the mother in this case made a choice. You're also ignoring the fact that the results of the early treatment could probably also be tested
Re: (Score:2)
"women should have the right to choose."
"Laws don't give you Rights, they give you permission."
- G. Carlin
Re: (Score:2)
We know the long term effects of banning abortion. More women are dying [texasstandard.org]. Not to mention more women are infected with sepsis [propublica.org] due to abortion being banned, which can also lead to death or, at the very least, severe medical conditions.
Re: (Score:2)
And with an abortion, there are no doubts about the long term consequences. This kid could still be in for a life of suffering.
I'm personally pro-choice where abortions are medically necessary. Also I don't believe in forcing women to carry babies to term in various other cases such as instances of rape, etc. On the other hand I am very much in favor of reducing the necessity of abortion. That means ideally everyone uses birth control before the fact, a less horrifying system for children given up by their parents, reduction in rape and sexual assault in general and also medical intervention to prevent medical issues that might req
This is very cool (Score:3)
WTF parents knew they were gene carriers (Score:3)
And still decided to roll the 4-sided dice!
Re: (Score:2)
That seems to be an unreasonable position to take. You don't know their situation. This certainly could have been an accident. Birth control certainly fails. Sure there are methods like a hysterectomy or even an oophorectomy or castration that would have guaranteed this couple would not have children, but those are extreme procedures, and unreasonable to demand when there's the possibility, for example of a genetic cure being developed. Oh look, it seems one was. Aside from that, even if they decided to rol