4 ms·

The question is about whether the child will develop symptoms later in life, as the defective DNA was not 100% removed. The larger questions around issues like

by nxc18 10y ago

The question is about whether the child will develop symptoms later in life, as the defective DNA was not 100% removed. The larger questions around issues like these is whether or not the fix will last. Solving a problem 90% can actually have pretty bad consequences; If you solve a problem that causes infertility or early death only temporarily, you could create a child that grows to adulthood only to have life cut short. Would this process still be a good thing if the child died at 10 years rather than 3? 15? 20? Questions remain because we actually have no idea how this is going to play out. I'm with you, this is probably a good thing, but it will be many years before we know for sure.

Mz 10y ago
The question is about whether the child will develop symptoms later in life, as the defective DNA was not 100% removed. If he does not die by age 3, it is an improvement. Duh.
- Teever 10y ago
  So if the child lives to age 53, but after age three it is a life full of agony and tremendous burden to society that's an improvement in your book?
  - Mz 10y ago
    You know, I have a form of Cystic Fibrosis. I was diagnosed late in life and I get accused of being insane and making shit up for talking about getting myself well. I would literally commit suicide if I thought my future was as hopeless as what doctor's promise you for Cystic Fibrosis. Yet, I have been on email lists where parents said very touching things like "My son turned 18 today. Today, the life expectancy is age 36. When he was born, it was 18." And I have talked to people who have had double lung transplants -- a thing I have no desire to go through and the idea of being listed fills me with horror because you basically wait for someone young and healthy to die tragically young in an accident so that you might live -- and they describe the agony they have been through and say they would do it all again and have no regrets. The parents wanted this child. Their two previous children died by age 3 due to the genetic disorder the mother carries. It seems they felt it was better. Who the hell are you to judge?

by nxc18 10y ago

Mz 10y ago

The question is about whether the child will develop symptoms later in life, as the defective DNA was not 100% removed. If he does not die by age 3, it is an improvement. Duh.

Teever 10y ago
So if the child lives to age 53, but after age three it is a life full of agony and tremendous burden to society that's an improvement in your book?
- Mz 10y ago
  You know, I have a form of Cystic Fibrosis. I was diagnosed late in life and I get accused of being insane and making shit up for talking about getting myself well. I would literally commit suicide if I thought my future was as hopeless as what doctor's promise you for Cystic Fibrosis. Yet, I have been on email lists where parents said very touching things like "My son turned 18 today. Today, the life expectancy is age 36. When he was born, it was 18." And I have talked to people who have had double lung transplants -- a thing I have no desire to go through and the idea of being listed fills me with horror because you basically wait for someone young and healthy to die tragically young in an accident so that you might live -- and they describe the agony they have been through and say they would do it all again and have no regrets. The parents wanted this child. Their two previous children died by age 3 due to the genetic disorder the mother carries. It seems they felt it was better. Who the hell are you to judge?