Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
For example Huntington's disease is an absolutely devastating and horrible condition. What makes it worse also is that it is an autosomal dominant defect, meaning you only need one copy from one afflicted parent (not two).
Should someone with Huntington's disease be allowed to procreate and have kids that can suffer the same horrific consequence as them with a condition that has no cure?
I think that someone with Huntingtons disease would probably want to take the precautions to prevent passing the disease on to their child, I doubt that anyone would "knowingly" do that. I don't believe that there should ever be any kind of restrictions, prerequisites, or any other criteria to be met before anyone should be "allowed" to procreate....just the word "allowing" gives me the shivers.
People gentetic diseases should not be allowed to procreate. I'm probably unpopular when saying this but why would you want to have children with such a terrible disease?
I don't believe that there should ever be any kind of restrictions, prerequisites, or any other criteria to be met before anyone should be "allowed" to procreate.
On the contrary, I see many people on a daily basis that should fall into that catagory.
I think that someone with Huntingtons disease would probably want to take the precautions to prevent passing the disease on to their child, I doubt that anyone would "knowingly" do that. I don't believe that there should ever be any kind of restrictions, prerequisites, or any other criteria to be met before anyone should be "allowed" to procreate....just the word "allowing" gives me the shivers.
I think we need to leave that up to individuals to decide for themselves. These are very personal decisions, not something that should be open for all to debate, IMO. That said, most people would not bring a child into this world only to suffer. And not all terrible diseases autmatically equal no quality of life.
If "society" starts to ban people who carry certain undesirable genes (for Alzheimers, cancer, Parkinsons, MS, whatever) from reproducing, the human race would die off pretty quickly....
For example Huntington's disease is an absolutely devastating and horrible condition. What makes it worse also is that it is an autosomal dominant defect, meaning you only need one copy from one afflicted parent (not two).
Should someone with Huntington's disease be allowed to procreate and have kids that can suffer the same horrific consequence as them with a condition that has no cure?
I think genetic counseling should be available to people with Huntington's in the family, and they should be strongly encouraged to use IVF, donor sperm/eggs, or to adopt. Encouraged. Not required. And I believe insurance should pay for it in those instances, since it's probably cheaper to fund 2-3 rounds of IVF than it is to care for a Huntington's patient in the throes of the disease. It doesn't kill overnight, and kills in the prime of life.
For example Huntington's disease is an absolutely devastating and horrible condition. What makes it worse also is that it is an autosomal dominant defect, meaning you only need one copy from one afflicted parent (not two).
Should someone with Huntington's disease be allowed to procreate and have kids that can suffer the same horrific consequence as them with a condition that has no cure?
If one parent has the gene for Huntingtons and one parent does not have the gene - there would be a 50/50 chance of the gene being passed on to their child. So it's not set in stone that their offspring would ever have to deal with the disease.
I agree that amnio, genetic counseling, etc should be available to these parents - if they want it. If they don't want to risk passing the gene to their offspring - IVF, adoption are always good options.
But again, nobody has perfect genes. The couple that adopts to avoid passing along the Huntington's disease gene might wind up with a child who will be incapacitated by a heart attack/stroke at 35. With life, there just aren't any guarantees.
If one parent has the gene for Huntingtons and one parent does not have the gene - there would be a 50/50 chance of the gene being passed on to their child. So it's not set in stone that their offspring would ever have to deal with the disease.
I agree that amnio, genetic counseling, etc should be available to these parents - if they want it. If they don't want to risk passing the gene to their offspring - IVF, adoption are always good options.
But again, nobody has perfect genes. The couple that adopts to avoid passing along the Huntington's disease gene might wind up with a child who will be incapacitated by a heart attack/stroke at 35. With life, there just aren't any guarantees.
Yes but there is risk management concerning genetic offspring.
If one would have statistical data either confirming or denying a person or couple's chances of conceiving a child with debilitating and or life shortening conditions then they would be able to make a true educated decision.
If there is statistical data showing a significant chance of disease of offspring and the parties involved ignore the data provided then that, in my opinion would be gross irresponsibility on their part.
Yes but there is risk management concerning genetic offspring.
If one would have statistical data either confirming or denying a person or couple's chances of conceiving a child with debilitating and or life shortening conditions then they would be able to make a true educated decision.
If there is statistical data showing a significant chance of disease of offspring and the parties involved ignore the data provided then that, in my opinion would be gross irresponsibility on their part.
I suppose it boils down to risk tolerance. The couple has a 50 percent chance of not passing the gene on to their offspring. And that chance can be mitigated even further through amnio/genetic testing - they can opt to selectively terminate. But selective termination is actually much trickier ground IMO - I am not comfortable with it myself - although it is not new ground. But in terms of risk mitigation - it is possible to do that.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
