Parliament says yes to three-person babies

[DontSayBanana]

Sorry, I've been confused as to your position throughout the tread.

Actually, his position has pretty consistently been "Euros are goofs who care more about raising tomatos than babies."  Nobody said his position had to be salient to the topic.

[grumbler]

So? No one not yet born gets to consent ever on matters regarding birth, prenatal care/treatments, whether or not they are actually born, etc.

Yep. It's an ethical problem with all sorts of issues, but I think more so with genetics and even more with inheritable genetic changes.

I still have no idea what the ethical issue is.  I guess it is one of those things that is an ethical issue by definition.  I'm completely unconcerned about those, as I don't accept that definition.

[Admiral Yi]

Though I liked this from one political reporter:
Paul Waugh @paulwaugh  ·  12h 12 hours ago
RiposteOfTheDay. Evangelical Tory MP in No lobby: "I'm voting for Jesus." 2nd Tory MP in Aye lobby: "But didn't He have three parents?"

[11B4V]

So? No one not yet born gets to consent ever on matters regarding birth, prenatal care/treatments, whether or not they are actually born, etc.

Yep. It's an ethical problem with all sorts of issues, but I think more so with genetics and even more with inheritable genetic changes.

I still have no idea what the ethical issue is.  I guess it is one of those things that is an ethical issue by definition.  I'm completely unconcerned about those, as I don't accept that definition.

What ethical issues or concerns? I believe this has been asked several times in this thread.

[Martinus]

Sheilbh said it makes him uncomfortable, so it's an ethical issue.

[DontSayBanana]

I still have no idea what the ethical issue is.  I guess it is one of those things that is an ethical issue by definition.  I'm completely unconcerned about those, as I don't accept that definition.

Apparently it's an ethical issue because:

1) The baby's genetic identity might be modified.  But not really, since it's been established that's not a possible outcome of this procedure.
2) The unborn baby isn't in a position to provide consent for the nonexistent changes being made to its person.
3) Not enough safety studies.

[Eddie Teach]

Science is evil.

Agreed. So, you gonna quit your job or what?

[Sheilbh]

Sheilbh said it makes him uncomfortable, so it's an ethical issue.

I'll come back to this thread tomorrow.

But I don't entirely understand how people can perceive an issue that alters a person's and their descendants' genetic make-up, without the possibility of consent as not prompting ethical concerns. This is germline gene therapy. Even if you support it absolutely and would even support similar therapy (which I believe theoretically could be done) to treat cystic fibrosis, I don't see how you can not treat that as activating ethical concerns. You can say they're outweighed by the benefit but they exist and I doubt they've been explored in 90 minutes.

In addition there are questions of parenthood and the rights of the child which I don't think can just be dismissed. Some have raised the issue that future mitochondrial replacement treatments being limited to creating boys so any possible adverse effects won't be passed on which raises a whole other set of concerns.

I'm not necessarily entirely opposed, but I'm not sure it's clear that it's fully safe given the response of other species. I don't think the UK should do this alone, I think there needs to be a broader international discussion and consensus which would include those ethical questions.

[garbon]

But I don't entirely understand how people can perceive an issue that alters a person's and their descendants' genetic make-up, without the possibility of consent as not prompting ethical concerns.

If that's the concern, then I would say this is certainly less of an ethical issue than say abortion where you are preventing a person and their descendants from even coming into existence.

[crazy canuck]

But I don't entirely understand how people can perceive an issue that alters a person's and their descendants' genetic make-up, without the possibility of consent as not prompting ethical concerns.

If that's the concern, then I would say this is certainly less of an ethical issue than say abortion where you are preventing a person and their descendants from even coming into existence.

Except you are preventing that person from coming into existence.  The person who is coming into existence is something different.

[Sheilbh]

I think there are ethical issues with abortion. In general we've tried to create a pragmatic framework for it, which has broad public support.

But I find abortion difficult. The only positions that I find mentally acceptable are the extremes, but the one I support is the pragmatic framework that we currently have plus or minus a few weeks.

However the difference surely is pre-meditation.

Edit: And as CC says autonomy.

[garbon]

But I don't entirely understand how people can perceive an issue that alters a person's and their descendants' genetic make-up, without the possibility of consent as not prompting ethical concerns.

If that's the concern, then I would say this is certainly less of an ethical issue than say abortion where you are preventing a person and their descendants from even coming into existence.

Except you are preventing that person from coming into existence.  The person who is coming into existence is something different.

Yeah and the flipside in this instance is that a woman (with said condition) will give birth to an unhealthy child that will likely die. "Thanks, mom, for avoiding modern science?"

[grumbler]

Sheilbh said it makes him uncomfortable, so it's an ethical issue.

I'll come back to this thread tomorrow.

But I don't entirely understand how people can perceive an issue that alters a person's and their descendants' genetic make-up, without the possibility of consent as not prompting ethical concerns. This is germline gene therapy. Even if you support it absolutely and would even support similar therapy (which I believe theoretically could be done) to treat cystic fibrosis, I don't see how you can not treat that as activating ethical concerns. You can say they're outweighed by the benefit but they exist and I doubt they've been explored in 90 minutes.

In addition there are questions of parenthood and the rights of the child which I don't think can just be dismissed. Some have raised the issue that future mitochondrial replacement treatments being limited to creating boys so any possible adverse effects won't be passed on which raises a whole other set of concerns.

I'm not necessarily entirely opposed, but I'm not sure it's clear that it's fully safe given the response of other species. I don't think the UK should do this alone, I think there needs to be a broader international discussion and consensus which would include those ethical questions.

No one chooses which sperm out of millions inseminates the egg that becomes "them," and yet this determines the genetic makeup of the person and their descendents.  Is this also an ethical concern for you?

I think that this is a made-up dilemma.  Parliament could debate 90 hours and be no better-informed than after 90 minutes.

[Capetan Mihali]

Parliament could debate 90 hours and be no better-informed than after 90 minutes.

But we might be.

[DontSayBanana]

We've actually been pretty well informed on this.  Sheilbh's taking issue with the alteration of DNA, and is absolutely refusing to acknowledge that mitochondrial DNA is a completely separate and distinct set of DNA.  He keeps reminding us that it "alters[sic] a person's and their descendants' genetic make-up" which is disingenuous, at best.  Only the mitochondria would be altered.

It sounds like Sheilbh's advocating the position that all parts of a human are completely interconnected and thus sacrosanct, when it just isn't true, but he won't admit that the alternate position exists.  Gene therapy specifically for the mitochondria more closely resembles maintenance on the gut bacteria than an abortion.

I'm just surprised that he's getting so shrill about it- usually, Sheilbh is one of the more even-keeled posters, if prone to some funny theories now and again.  Guess everybody's got a button to push.