2 ms·
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 i
by 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 agoSo 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 agoYou 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?