4 ms·
> I may pass that on to my own children A more palatable approach would be to treat you but not allow you to have children with the same condition. In the past
by flukus 7y ago
> I may pass that on to my own children
A more palatable approach would be to treat you but not allow you to have children with the same condition. In the past this has been done in fairly barbaric ways but embryo selection offers a far more reasonable solution with minimal limitations on individual rights.
As for whether we should treat children and condemn them to a life of suffering, we already do this calculus with the elderly. Whether or not to perform a procedure depends on the chances of success and the number of quality years they can expect to have afterwards, procedures that will extend life by a year and result in a bedridden patient are routinely skipped, it's only applying the same to children that makes us squeamish.
My friends an ambulance driver and recently had to transport a blind, deaf and mentally retarded baby with a chronic heart condition. The question all the doctors and nurses in the hospital had to ask that night is whether they should treat the child if their heart fails. For me at least the answer is an obvious no in that case.
- geargrinder 7y agoThat's a slippery slope. Who gets to decide who lives and who dies? Who should we abort or sterilize? We all suffer to some degree, then we all die. It's the human condition.
- sebazzz 7y agoAt one point you could ask what the difference is between not treating a condition and euthanasia.
- adrianN 7y agoUltimately the parents should get to decide, but we should make all means necessary available to them to give them the option so select, or engineer, a healthy embryo.
- flukus 7y agoYes, but it's an unavoidable slippery slope forced on us by nature, that we can affect with technology and that won't be going away until we can eliminate death and suffering. It's not a new slippery slope, doctors/parents/bureaucrats have to make decisions like this every day already and have for most of human history. It's where we draw the lines on this slippery slope that constantly evolve.
- liability 7y ago> Who gets to decide who lives and who dies? Doctors do all the time, they even have their own word for it: triage. When resources are insufficient to cover the needs of everybody, difficult decisions need to be made. Or as the case may be, easy decisions...
- pvaldes 7y agoIs a decission reserved to parents, in this case. Triage is a term that aim to save the maximum number of people in disasters with many victims. Not to decide if somebody dies or lives. People is classified in colors black, red, etc after its state. If you are in an accident and you cry and shout repeatedly you are classified in a lower priority than the quiet person that do not moves.
- liability 7y agoBetween population growth not slowing anywhere near fast enough and rapid environment loss due to climate change, there is a good chance we'll see the mother of all triages. Not something to look forward to.
- pvaldes 7y agoYup, "lets kill the poor and all our problems will be solved" is a trendy old idea, trendy and deeply wrong also.
- liability 7y agoI thought this discussion was about prioritizing care to children that have a chance at a normal life (e.g. are not "a blind, deaf and mentally retarded baby with a chronic heart condition"), not killing the poor. My bad.