New 'genetic MoT' to detect disease in embryos

New 'genetic MoT' to detect disease in embryos

ukfamily.co.uk

The 'universal test' will allow prospective parents to have their embryos screened to see if genetic disorders have been passed on.

The test, which costs £1,500, can detect almost all inherited disorders, such as Huntington's disease, cystic fibrosis and muscular dystrophy.

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
ukpress.google.com

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
"We Will Alter Human Evolution Within 20 Years"
Is there a human right to be superhuman?

But the 'genetic MoT' has been subject to criticisms because it raises questions of 'designer babies'.

Opinions? Will this lead more people to have more abortions? How do ATS members feel about this?

I think it's a good thing....ultimately could save society $$$ on healthcare.

ukfamily.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

I like the idea, but I am not a breeder...but, if I did aim to have children, I would like to know if they will be deformed or malformed. I don't think I could deal with having a child that was afflicted with a severe genetic disorder. I have worn glasses all my life and I hate not being like everyone else - I know that might seem harsh but that seriously limits what I can do for fun and for work.

I won't touch the abortion issue as I do not have a say as I am incapable of carry a child and am not married...

From the OP's article

The test involves creating embryos by IVF and removing a single cell when the embryo is two days old. The cells are then tested by a technique known as karyomapping. Following the test, a healthy embryo is implanted into the womb.

So no increase in abortions – the test is for embryos conceived in a test tube, to decide which ones to implant. I suppose it's possible that more people would opt to use in vitro fertilization so that they could have the embryos tested, but given the expense and inconvenience of IVF as compared to the more primitive means most people use to get pregnant, I don't see it making much of an impact.

I do think this could be great news for couples who are trying IVF because they have been unable to have children otherwise.

reply to post by americandingbat


Thanks for the reply. I agree to an extent.

But you are still creating life whether it's IVF or not. Then you're screening cells from this process. That could be considered "designer babies" and unethical to some don't you think??

I think this may be the next step to evolution. The creation of super-humans. I do not know how I feel about this yet. I guess I am initially in support of this, and the modification of genes to create super children is an interesting idea. The furtherance of humanity or its destruction? Technology is always a toss up.

reply to post by Scramjet76


It could, and it does raise a lot of questions.

But in abortion terms, so does IVF in general. No matter what, you're creating more embryos than you plan to bring into the world. I'm not saying it's bad (I'm also pro-choice), but it is a side of IVF and the abortion issue that doesn't get paid much attention.

I think it's unlikely that this development will be used to make "designer babies": my understanding of IVF is that a handful of embryos are created, and many of those may not be viable, so there is very limited opportunity to choose based on things like eye color.

But I think the technology will exist, and not that far in the future, so it's good to have the discussion now

reply to post by Scramjet76



Imo, this type of screening should be conducted as a matter of course -- in other words, be mandatory. And those embryos with problems could then be terminated .. again, mandatorily.

It's past time this occurred

Originally posted by Dock6
reply to post by Scramjet76

 

Imo, this type of screening should be conducted as a matter of course -- in other words, be mandatory. And those embryos with problems could then be terminated .. again, mandatorily.

It's past time this occurred

I'm all for the screening but I'm pro choice so it should be up to the mother to decide what course to take concerning her being a mother or not.

However there does seem to be quite enough morons running around.

reply to post by whaaa


I might be pro-choice too ... on the condition the mother/parents are required to pay every expense entailed, lifelong.

When it's society which has to pay, then it's society which decides .. imo

reply to post by Dock6


Ahh so society should screening embryos to save $$ on the overburdened healthcare system?