Couples Cull Embryos to Halt Heritage of Cancer

NY Times ^ | 09.03.06 | AMY HARMON

[Coleus]

As Chad Kingsbury watches his daughter playing in the sandbox behind their suburban Chicago house, the thought that has flashed through his mind a million times in her two years of life comes again: Chloe will never be sick.

Not, at least, with the inherited form of colon cancer that has devastated his family, killing his mother, her father and her two brothers, and that he too may face because of a genetic mutation that makes him unusually susceptible.

By subjecting Chloe to a genetic test when she was an eight-cell embryo in a petri dish, Mr. Kingsbury and his wife, Colby, were able to determine that she did not harbor the defective gene. That was the reason they selected her, from among the other embryos they had conceived through elective in vitro fertilization, to implant in her mother’s uterus.

Prospective parents have been using the procedure, known as preimplantation genetic diagnosis, or P.G.D., for more than a decade to screen for genes certain to cause childhood diseases that are severe and largely untreatable.

Now a growing number of couples like the Kingsburys are crossing a new threshold for parental intervention in the genetic makeup of their offspring: They are using P.G.D. to detect a predisposition to cancers that may or may not develop later in life, and are often treatable if they do.

For most parents who have used preimplantation diagnosis, the burden of playing God has been trumped by the near certainty that diseases like cystic fibrosis and sickle cell anemia will afflict the children who carry the genetic mutation that causes them.

[orionblamblam]

> I do have a responsibility for helping destroy the system that created them

Yes, that darn modern western medicine. Or is it science in general that you are opposed to?

[Coleus]

THE CODE FOR HUMAN LIFE
E-Forensic Medicine ^ | Frederick T. Zugibe, M.S., M.D., Ph.D., FCAP, FACC, FAAFS

[The Cuban]

No, I am against Mengeleian Science.

[franky]

Our God is a jealous God, He will have no other Gods before Him.

And chastisement will increase.

[tortoise]

My fingernails do not have a soul.

Prove it. Or for that matter, prove a test tube embryo does.

[NYer]

my sister went through the heartbreak of having a baby that had brain cancer. She died at 7.5 months, the last 6 weeks of her life spent in intensive care. Could she have been blamed for "pre-screening" if she had had the option? Not an easy choice.

Thank you for your excellent testimony!

Friends of mine gave birth to their first child in November 2004. Despite all the "pre-screening", the child was born with multiple birth defects. The parents were in a financial position to afford treatment. Over the span of 9 months, the child underwent several surgical procedures, rebounded and then relapsed as another problem cropped up. This young couple fought valiantly for the life of their child, and so did their son. In July 2005, following 13 hours of open heart surgery, the team of specialists counseled the young couple. They assured them that every medical procedure known to man had been done on their son but that he was a very sick child and nothing further could be done.

The family's catholic pastor drove 4 hours to administer the Last Rites and be with them in this time of grief. When they were ready, the child was placed in the arms of his mother, life support systems were disconnected and he died peacefully, in her loving embrace.

Life has great meaning. This child's life was short but he contributed so much to the congregation that prayed for him along with his parents. At his funeral, the medical staffs of two hospitals, who had ministered to him in life, ALL showed up. This child had touched the lives of so many, in his short existence.

In July 2006, as the first anniversary of his death approached, the young mother gave birth to a 2nd son. He accompanied his parents to church on that 1st anniversary. The parents promised their first child that he would be forever remembered to his siblings. The same community that prayed for the first child and accompanied the parents on their "Via Dolorosa", joined together again last month, to welcome the 2nd son into the family of God, through the Rite of Baptism.

ALL of us have been touched by the tremendous courage of this young couple. We have reassessed our own priorities of life, drawing strength from their testimony.

[tortoise]

I have never had a beer with a zygote.

Of course not. Zygotes go better with a vodka martini and a side of fresh grated horseradish.

[Not A Snowbird]

My fingernails do not have a soul.

Does an embryo?

I don't know. Does it? How would we know?

[lentulusgracchus]

Of course not. Zygotes go better with a vodka martini and a side of fresh grated horseradish.

You sound like a good, tough scientific materialist. Let's see how tough you are, tough guy, when it's your turn, and the doctor finally gives you your bad news.

Stiff upper lip, pal. No prayers, no sacraments, no otherworldly solemnities for you. Go down hard, and show the rest of us how it's done.

[Coleus]

When The Unborn Doesn't Go Quietly To His Execution, "Tiny Tim"

Couples Cull Embryos to Halt Heritage of Cancer

SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS OREGON'S SUICIDE LAW

Stem cell experts seek rabbit-human embryo

Sex-Selection by Embryo Screening Approved for US Trial

First Trio "Married" in The Netherlands

Disabled man beaten in small town (LOWRY CITY, Mo)

Michael Schiavo Poised To Sue Caregivers

Did a Doctor Kill Her Baby?;

Half of Infant Deaths in Flanders Were Euthanasia

[NYer]

Humans have been practicing selective breeding ever since there were humans.

Really? How so? Drowning the unwanted, like they do with kittens or puppies?

You might just as well lament the fact that the several million of Chloe's father's sperm all swam to no end and died.

Only one sperm can impregnate an ovum! It takes millions of sperm for the one to reach its destiny. Your argument makes absolutely no sense.

And I suspect this child will be very thankful to her parents that she will not have to spend the first few decades of her life knowing that she will eventually die of cancer at a young age.

And how will she know this if the parents have not pointed this out to her, which you attest will never happen.

[madprof98]

Would either a). testing of naturally occurring eggs and sperm or b). engineering eggs and sperm prior to fertilisation be morally acceptable to those of you who oppose the destruction of embryos?

For many of us, the problem is not just with the screen-and-discard process. It's with the whole process that separates conception from natural human relations--with IVF itself. This is what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says about IVF involving sperm and egg from the biological parents themselves:

2377 Techniques involving only the married couple (homologous artificial insemination and fertilization) are perhaps less reprehensible [than those involving donor sperm and/or egg], yet remain morally unacceptable. They dissociate the sexual act from the procreative act. The act which brings the child into existence is no longer an act by which two persons give themselves to one another, but one that "entrusts the life and identity of the embryo into the power of doctors and biologists and establishes the domination of technology over the origin and destiny of the human person. Such a relationship of domination is in itself contrary to the dignity and equality that must be common to parents and children." "Under the moral aspect procreation is deprived of its proper perfection when it is not willed as the fruit of the conjugal act, that is to say, of the specific act of the spouses' union . . . . Only respect for the link between the meanings of the conjugal act and respect for the unity of the human being make possible procreation in conformity with the dignity of the person."

Obviously, this is a minority view even now - and will become more so as people increasingly reject the notion of giving birth to "defective" children. But I think most people know that there is something amiss with the mindset behind test-tube baby-making. That's probably why so many of them are anxious to find a good rationale for destroying the unwanted embryos stored in fertility clinics.

[tortoise]

Stiff upper lip, pal. No prayers, no sacraments, no otherworldly solemnities for you. Go down hard, and show the rest of us how it's done.

Sounds good to me. Not sure what your reply had to do with anything, but you are not exactly projecting scintillating intellect either which probably explains everything just fine.

[Coleus]

eggs and sperm are NOT human life, they are cells from humans with 1/2 the DNA (23 chromosomes) than the rest of the cells in the human body which have 46 chromosomes.

However, when the egg cell joins with the sperm cell a new Human Being with his own DNA is formed.

THE CODE FOR HUMAN LIFE
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1059933/posts

In order for Chloe's parents to have chosen Chloe, they had to have created many embryos/children to have picked the healthiest. The rest of Chole's siblings are on ice. That's the IVF procedure for you.

[jas3]

From what I have learned about human development, fertilization is the most logical point to say "an individual human life has started."

But what about it makes it logical? Why not after the child is born. Some people (not I) would argue that after birth "From then on, it's a steady progression through normal development, if in the proper environment."

What is it about the fertilised egg that qualifies for your definition of deserving of legal protection (and destruction of which has moral consequence).

Pardon me for saying so, but isn't the distinction somewhat arbitrary? One cell has one compliment of DNA, another has two. Therefore the latter is deserving of legal protection?

Also, I wonder how you feel about the destruction of unfertilised eggs? Many animals and plants can reproduce without sperm in a process called Parthenogenesis. In April 2004, scientists at Tokyo University of Agriculture used parthenogenesis to successfully create fatherless mice. The same process could be used to reproduce humans. Does that change your view at all?

Would an egg that was manipulated to start dividing on its own without sperm to the 8 cell stage and then destroyed create the same moral problems for you as one that was fertilised, grown to 8 cells and then destroyed? I ask, because I am trying to understand what it is specifically that you deem to create moral value in the process. Maybe it is just the process of division that you think creates moral consequence?

jas3

[Wonder Warthog]

"Life beings *before* conception. Sperm and eggs are alive, after all. The question is not when does "life" begins (about 2 billion years ago...) but when "human life worthy of legal protection" begins."

There's no "debate" about it. The point where an individual human life begins is conception. At that SPECIFIC point, a set of biochemical reactions begins that will yield a new, unique human being. That initiating impetus continues for 25 years (the period of cellular growth and maturation). After that point, the mature human continues until death (at whatever age). Prior to conception, sperm cells and egg cells are indeed "alive" but only as motile parts of a the human that produced them---NOT new unique life.

All other points of view are simply sophistry trying to justify murder.

[Wonder Warthog]

See post 116.

[jas3]

Humans have been practicing selective breeding ever since there were humans.

Really? How so? Drowning the unwanted, like they do with kittens or puppies?

Nope, just by deciding with whom one wants to reproduce. In human populations, individuals tend to reproduce with more fit members. That's the very definition of selective breeding. For example, many men would chose to breed with Heidi Klum, but few with Helen Thomas.

You might just as well lament the fact that the several million of Chloe's father's sperm all swam to no end and died.

Only one sperm can impregnate an ovum! It takes millions of sperm for the one to reach its destiny. Your argument makes absolutely no sense.

Let me explain it to you again. If you lament the millions and millions of embryos that naturally die every year (which I doubt you do), you might as well lament the millions and millions of sperm which also do not fertilise an egg. They are both largely irrelevant and morally inconsequential, or neither are.

And I suspect this child will be very thankful to her parents that she will not have to spend the first few decades of her life knowing that she will eventually die of cancer at a young age.

And how will she know this if the parents have not pointed this out to her, which you attest will never happen.

Strike the "to her parents" phrase: I supsect the child will be very thankful that she will not have to spend the first few decades of her life knowing that she will eventually die of cancer at a young age.

jas3

[little jeremiah]

The symptom of the presence of the soul is life: growth, etc. The rationale that an embryo isn't worthy of living can be applied to any unborn baby, and, according to "ethicists" like Professor Peter Singer, to born children as well, if they don't achieve certain standards. And also old people, and sick people. Some of them might be considered to not be "self aware", and certainly have no bright future ahead.

So you're saying that there must be self-awareness to warrant not being killed? How much self-awareness? A lot of newborns aren't very self-aware either. People argued that Terri Schiavo wasn't self-aware. Should she have been killed, or should she have been allowed to live?

I get my information from three places:

1. Common sense
2. Vedas
3. Bible

And the Golden Rule, which is extant in one form or another in every religion in the world. Just as you like being allowed to live, let others live. Just as you don't like being murdered, don't murder anyone.

[jas3]

Yeah...but the guys who wrote that Catechism thing have no real training in bioethics, and no source documents from which to draw on, i.e. there's nothing in the Bible about IVF or embryos.

Why is the opinion of the Catholic Church anything more than just opinion that Catholics should accept for themselves, but not try to impose upon Jews or Protestants?

jas3