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.

[The Cuban]

1) Prayer, 2) voting for those who oppose the system, or not voting at all, 3) airing my views as often as I can to whomever I can

[linda_22003]

That's fine. Although I certainly haven't heard any politician come out against IVF; it's not good PR to look like you're against women who WANT to become mothers.

[syriacus]

I see...you weren't quoting someone...
you were exaggerating their position, when you wrote
And then we can get rid of chemotherapy and glasses, too

[syriacus]

For the same reason that some people argue that a fertilized human egg deserves the same moral and legal protection as an adult.

I see. I didn't realize where you were coming from.
I know only little about the issue of the sacredness of plant life. I had thought our civilization, especially our scientists, had advanced beyond thinking trees were sacred and I thought Christianity helped bring about that advancement.

I vaguely recall the Druids and Germanic tribes held trees in special regard.

St. Boniface

To show the heathens how utterly powerless were the gods in whom they placed their confidence, Boniface felled the oak sacred to the thunder-god Thor, at Geismar, near Fritzlar. He had a chapel built out of the wood and dedicated it to the prince of the Apostles. The heathens were astonished that no thunderbolt from the hand of Thor destroyed the offender, and many were converted. The fall of this oak marked the fall of heathenism.

Christianity can't be all bad if it helped end infanticide and tree worship.

[syriacus]

Actually it is quite unlikely that any acorn will become an oak tree.

Odds are significantly increased, if the acorn has germinated, like a blastosphere has.

[syriacus]

he blastospheres that are the subject of the article atop this post have divided thrice. Show me an acorn that has been through only three cell divisions, and then attempt to sell it as a TREE.

Your acorn comparison didn't work. Got any better comparisons?

[syriacus]

Here's an alternative way to look at it. There is a blueprint of a building on a table in your yard. Someone's cigarette ignites the blueprint. The police arrest the smoker for arson for the destruction of the building.

I know you value human life. Why do your comparisons seem to involve lower forms of life and inanimate objects?

[syriacus]

It is a big stretch to suggest that a blastosphere "contains" a small child. It is proper to suggest that it might develop into a child, but there is no miniature child inside the blastosphere, so your analogy of an actual child inside a building is not apt.

I like my analogy. At least it involves humans.

[orionblamblam]

> you were exaggerating their position

Was I? Is it really so far to extrapolate when someone wants to get rid of both experimental *and* well established medical procedures because those procedures are "playing God" to assume that no medical procedure is safe from their wrath?

*All* medicine is "playing God."

[syriacus]

Each medical procedure deserves its own evaluation.

[syriacus]

Is it really so far to extrapolate when someone wants to get rid of both experimental *and* well established medical procedures because those procedures are "playing God" to assume that no medical procedure is safe from their wrath?

Gee. I don't jump to the conclusion that you think all medical procedures are ethically acceptable.

Can't you cut the anti-ESCR folks a little slack? Give them some credit.

[jwalsh07]

No Mr Luddite. Embryo's are viable human organisms, dandruff is dandruff. See if you can figure out the difference but stay away from your Alchemy 101 text book.

[jwalsh07]

Here's a hint: Dandruff is dead skin cells. Viable means capable of living. Embryo's are alive and capable of living.

Embryo's are viable, dandruff is not viable. Pb can not be transmutated to Au by chemical processes. Similarly dead cells can not be reanimated into live cells through natural processes. Entiendes Professor Alchemist??

[jas3]

For the same reason that some people argue that a fertilized human egg deserves the same moral and legal protection as an adult.

I see. I didn't realize where you were coming from. I know only little about the issue of the sacredness of plant life. I had thought our civilization, especially our scientists, had advanced beyond thinking trees were sacred and I thought Christianity helped bring about that advancement.

And you still do not realize where I'm coming from if you think that I am arguing that trees are sacred or that acorns = trees or that blastospheres = humans.

I vaguely recall the Druids and Germanic tribes held trees in special regard.

St. Boniface

To show the heathens how utterly powerless were the gods in whom they placed their confidence, Boniface felled the oak sacred to the thunder-god Thor, at Geismar, near Fritzlar. He had a chapel built out of the wood and dedicated it to the prince of the Apostles. The heathens were astonished that no thunderbolt from the hand of Thor destroyed the offender, and many were converted. The fall of this oak marked the fall of heathenism.

If the fall of this oak tree marked the fall of heathenism, it only fell for a short time, because heathenism appears to be doing very well today.

Christianity can't be all bad if it helped end infanticide and tree worship.

Did you mistake my point to be that Christianity is all bad?

jas3

[jas3]

Actually it is quite unlikely that any acorn will become an oak tree.

Odds are significantly increased, if the acorn has germinated, like a blastosphere has.

The odds may be above non-zero, but they are not high enough to equate an acorn that has been through three cell divisions with an oak tree.

jas3

[syriacus]

The odds may be above non-zero,

Yep!!

[jas3]

he blastospheres that are the subject of the article atop this post have divided thrice. Show me an acorn that has been through only three cell divisions, and then attempt to sell it as a TREE.

Your acorn comparison didn't work. Got any better comparisons?

Why did it not work? How is calling an acorn that has been through three cell divisions a TREE different from calling a blastosphere a human?

jas3

[jwalsh07]

Why did it not work? How is calling an acorn that has been through three cell divisions a TREE different from calling a blastosphere a human?

An acorn that has undergone three cell divisions is a tree at that stage of the tree's continuum. When you were three cell divisions old were you a kangaroo or an ostrich?

[syriacus]

Did you mistake my point to be that Christianity is all bad?

No.

[jas3]

Embryo's are viable human organisms

That is not true. Not even a majority of embryos are viable.

jas3