Inheritable genetic diseases

[Celes Tilly]

[sybillious]

it depends; if a person knows they have the gene for the disease, then the chances are fair, but in certain cases, both parents have to carry the gene for the disease to have effect.

it's a personal choice, hopefully, the individuals make informed decisions after they know what they may end up dealing with if children are created.

it's similar to whether or not drug addicts should be sterilized, or even the mentally challenged; a potential hotbed with no clear cut answers.
_________________
prinny...DOOD!

gotta gotta get a...SPICE WEASEL!

to paraphrase my fellow mod, parallax:
I hate my job with the passionately burning intensity of a thousand fiery suns.

[Arcana]

[Vextor]

The problem in the case of CF, is that there are many carriers of the disease, because the CF gene is recessive, and thus a person can be a carrier and live a normal life. If this person has children with another carrier, there would be a base 50% chance that the child would have CF. Is 50% chance high enough to make people not have children? That's the hard question. However, there are some other facts to consider.

There are ways to treat CF, and people can live reasonably long lives. If you get a lung transplant and if it is successful, then there would be less disconfort (although you'd still have problems with your pancreas and you'll have to take anti-rejection medication for your entire life, and those pills are huge).

Also, most all males (I levelieve in the high 90 percentile) end up being sterile anyhow due to the nature of the disease. Felames can have babies, but if they do have children with a non-carrier, the child would not have CF--the child would only be a carrier.

It is possible to do a test on yourself to see if you are a carrier, too. I believe the statistics was that 1 out of 25 people of European descent will be a carrier for the CF gene. This is apparently because CF carriers have greater resistance to cholera and typhoid fever.

Personally, I think if a CF patient wants a child, they should go ahead. They know the risks of the disease, and would likely have a better idea of how it can be treated. if a CF patient makes sure their partner is a non-carrier, that's also good.

[Nimble Jack]

Evolution 101: Mutation.

Mutation is how species adapt to changes in the environment. New diseases falling under this category. Now lets say that two adults get together who have AIDS/HIV and they have a baby, who should undoubtably have AIDS/HIV. However the baby is fine, and after some tests doctors find that the baby has a immunization to the AIDS virus. It isn't as farfetched as it sounds. And so the baby is happy, the parents are happy, and the rest of the world is happy because the AIDS pandemic is finally at an end.

Now wasn't that a pretty little picture. If the two parents weren't allowed to have sex, or if the male had been castrated, or the girl forced into getting her tubes tied or whatever, then that baby never would have existed, and millions possibly billions of people would have died.

Also, going back to sickle cell anemia. When this genetic disease is in the pure form it is a burden to the person, certainly. When this disease is in the hybrid form it is a natural defense against malaria. This is because malaria causes blood clots and the like to form that doesn't permit the disc shaped, regular red blood cells to pass through, that would oxygenate your body. The sickel shaped cells can pass through becuase of their smaller shape.

I didn't fall asleep in biology. Could you tell?
P.S. sorry if I sounded a little bit angry I tend to get a tad passionate when I start to argue.
_________________
"Not everything is possible, but there are an infinite number of possibilities."

[Shrew]

Mutation occurs in all children. It doesn't matter whether the child's parents have AIDS or not. There could be people alive right now who are resistant to HIV, we just don't have a way of knowing. This just gives an "instant" test, and there's no greater likelyhood of a mutation than in those not infected.

Now AIDS isn't a genetic disorder, so it's a different case. CF is genetic, as is sickle cell anemia, and like both you and SARS mentioned, there are benefits to both when you are only a carrier. However, people can't mutate resistance to a genetic disease like with a virus like HIV or smallpox, they can just not get it. There's no benefit to having a kid with a mutation, because it just means he has a normal healthy gene. It won't save anyone else.

Things like CF and Huntington's Disease are flaws in the genome. If you preach pure evolution, it won't matter if the people have children because they'll die out before they can reproduce anyway. The only reason it persists is because the carrier/hybrid state offers some advantage. Of course, in modern society we can extend affected people's lives to a normal length, which allows them to reproduce, therefore increasing the chance that these diseases will remain in the genome.

So actually, if you prevented the sick people from reproducing, or even carriers, it would hasten the end of these diseases.
_________________


Fear our Vagueness.

[Solitude]

[Arcana]

A genetic mutation is basically a shift in genetic sequences. It usually occurs during reproduction. The common example is that gene strands might come into contact with each other during the division of the DNA, and a sequence of base pairs ends up getting switched with the other strand, or inverted, or deleted, or inserted.

Mutation (through "radiation") is a pop-culture kind of definition.

In any case, as it was said, AIDS/HIV is not a genetic disease, but my argument was that if you're going to be targetting genetic diseases, then why not target all diseases that are passed by birth, such as HIV?
_________________
Woo, 2000 posts as of Tuesday, 2007 August 28.

[RedCydranth]

[Tonberry]

Everyone, please do not let this topic get out of hand.

RC, I'd just like to point out that there is a difference between killing people and preventing reproduction. We've all learned about Hitler, and I'm sure that no one here is trying to start another movement like his.

[Child of The Sea God]

I think we shouldn't try to stop it. My idea is that it's against nature to not allow people to not have children. Even if we didn't allow it how would we punish people who broke the law?
_________________
Life is like a play, you're given the role that fate hands to you.
-Me

[RedCydranth]

[Hawk Thanatos]

I think Red's right, it's crazy to think that someone won't have a good life just because they'll have or may have a disease. It's like saying that people shouldn't play football because chances are they'll get hurt. Sure the pain's no fun but you can still enjoy the rest of the game.

[Tony Stark]

[Filipe]

To be frank it all comes down to money, and whether health care dollars in some countries should be used for the children who get these diseases from parents willing to risk it. Eseentially you put society into a situation of paying for children that if they have this at birth, will suffer horribly, and rack up huge bills in the process. My question then becomes, knowing the morale, and financial implications of bringing a child into the world with these problems, you would think unless you can financially pay for it dont. I know it's a horrible thing to ask people, but frankly why should the rest of us pay for children who are very likely to die horrible painful young deaths? I know it's speaking only in terms of the bottom line, but really it's the truth, as these potential parents know they could pass this on to their kids. They know that their family line will continue to carry it until, some time in the future they come up with cures for these diseases. I know it comes across as a horrible thing to say, but really if they make the choice to have these children knowing the risks, they also have to take financial responsibility for providing medical care for them. I am not saying that forced sterilization is the best option but sometimes you have to consider what is good for the majority of society.

You know what? You are absolutely right people with Aids should automatically become sterilized the moment a doctor discovers they are. There is absolutely no reason why a child should be brought into this world, knowing they will be infected with a disease that WILL kill them. Not to mention put even more financial pressure onto a society that shouldnt have to. Have you seen what this aids epidemic in Africa has done? Have you seen the aids babies in Africa and what "wonderful" things thats doing for them? Essentially these children are there dieing slow deaths, bringing further drain on a society that is already incredibly poor. Why should a child be brought into the world, for the sole purpose considering thats what will happen to die in a short amount of time? It could take a few years, it could take a decade with the right medication, but essentially no matter how you look at it, they will die sooner rather than later. Horrible as it sounds, frankly should people have aids really have the right to bring children into the world who will die in a few years?
_________________