4 ms·

I hope this is a first of many and that genetic testing of more conditions gets approved soon. I’m currently paying for a test suite during my IVF process that

by mpoon 3y ago

I hope this is a first of many and that genetic testing of more conditions gets approved soon. I’m currently paying for a test suite during my IVF process that will also test for things like ADHD risk, diabetes risk, and low IQ risk[1]. I think soon it will be basically immoral to not do these type of screenings and it should be accelerated. [1] First learned about this stuff here https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/yT22RcWrxZcXyGjsA/how-to-have-polygenically-screened-children https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/yT22RcWrxZcXyGjsA/how-to-hav...

prometheus76 3y ago
What are the moral implications of not knowing your unborn child has a risk of ADHD or diabetes? I am not following your reasoning.
- haswell 3y ago
  In a scenario where embryo selection is possible, it does seem like new moral/ethical considerations arise if you have the ability to choose an embryo that is at a lower risk for long term issues. That said, other questions arise like: what happens to the broader population when we start manually selecting for certain traits? It seems like unintended consequences could be lurking as well.
  - prometheus76 3y ago
    To suggest we should choose an embryo that is at lower risk of long-term issues reveals an underlying presupposition that suffering should be avoided or is bad. There are many examples throughout history of people who rose to great heights as a result of facing their suffering bravely.
    - haswell 3y ago
      While you will always find stories of people who've overcome great difficulties, there is no virtue in suffering for no reason, and when possible, we use medical interventions to prevent or avoid it. The success scenarios shouldn't imply that the state of suffering is itself desirable, even if it does sometimes lead to inspiring outcomes. There are plenty of examples of the opposite, with suicides providing a counterpoint at the extreme. The way I see this, suffering is part of life, and isn't something we can entirely eliminate. When suffering happens, there are better and worse ways to handle it, and good can come from it. But most of cultural/societal evolution is focused on finding ways to reduce or avoid it, and that's a good thing. Obvious examples like improving food security and reducing the impact of previously debilitating illnesses come to mind. I personally grew up not knowing where the next meal would come from some days. That early experience influenced the person I am today. Poverty/starvation are still situations we should continue to try to solve. So the question really becomes: what differentiates the standard ways we avoid unnecessary suffering from preemptive options that are on the horizon, if anything? i.e. if you have a bad knee, it makes sense to see someone and fix it. Given the choice, there's no reason to choose immobility. If an embryo has a high chance of developing lifelong congenital issues and a future parent has the option to choose an embryo that is significantly less likely to suffer the same fate, why not make that choice, especially if the affliction leads to high child mortality rates? So yes, I think there is a presupposition that suffering should be avoided when possible (it is often not possible). And I think most of the world runs on this presupposition. This should not be conflated with believing that suffering is inherently "bad", nor should the possibility of positive outcomes lead one to believe that suffering is "good".
- mpoon 3y ago
  Yeah sorry didn’t make it clear - specifically in the IVF process when you get to the decision of which embryo to implant, it’ll be immoral not to screen them all and choose the one with lowest health risks.
justrealist 3y ago
If you're using GP, they don't do monogenic screening like the hereditary cancers described here (it's an assay that's good for GRS but can't do monogenics). Orchid does monogenic screening though[1], because it's WGS, you can get in touch. [1] https://guides.orchidhealth.com/post/embryo-screening-and-hereditary-cancer https://guides.orchidhealth.com/post/embryo-screening-and-he...

by mpoon 3y ago

prometheus76 3y ago

What are the moral implications of not knowing your unborn child has a risk of ADHD or diabetes? I am not following your reasoning.

haswell 3y ago
In a scenario where embryo selection is possible, it does seem like new moral/ethical considerations arise if you have the ability to choose an embryo that is at a lower risk for long term issues. That said, other questions arise like: what happens to the broader population when we start manually selecting for certain traits? It seems like unintended consequences could be lurking as well.
- prometheus76 3y ago
  To suggest we should choose an embryo that is at lower risk of long-term issues reveals an underlying presupposition that suffering should be avoided or is bad. There are many examples throughout history of people who rose to great heights as a result of facing their suffering bravely.
  - haswell 3y ago
    While you will always find stories of people who've overcome great difficulties, there is no virtue in suffering for no reason, and when possible, we use medical interventions to prevent or avoid it. The success scenarios shouldn't imply that the state of suffering is itself desirable, even if it does sometimes lead to inspiring outcomes. There are plenty of examples of the opposite, with suicides providing a counterpoint at the extreme. The way I see this, suffering is part of life, and isn't something we can entirely eliminate. When suffering happens, there are better and worse ways to handle it, and good can come from it. But most of cultural/societal evolution is focused on finding ways to reduce or avoid it, and that's a good thing. Obvious examples like improving food security and reducing the impact of previously debilitating illnesses come to mind. I personally grew up not knowing where the next meal would come from some days. That early experience influenced the person I am today. Poverty/starvation are still situations we should continue to try to solve. So the question really becomes: what differentiates the standard ways we avoid unnecessary suffering from preemptive options that are on the horizon, if anything? i.e. if you have a bad knee, it makes sense to see someone and fix it. Given the choice, there's no reason to choose immobility. If an embryo has a high chance of developing lifelong congenital issues and a future parent has the option to choose an embryo that is significantly less likely to suffer the same fate, why not make that choice, especially if the affliction leads to high child mortality rates? So yes, I think there is a presupposition that suffering should be avoided when possible (it is often not possible). And I think most of the world runs on this presupposition. This should not be conflated with believing that suffering is inherently "bad", nor should the possibility of positive outcomes lead one to believe that suffering is "good".
mpoon 3y ago
Yeah sorry didn’t make it clear - specifically in the IVF process when you get to the decision of which embryo to implant, it’ll be immoral not to screen them all and choose the one with lowest health risks.

justrealist 3y ago

If you're using GP, they don't do monogenic screening like the hereditary cancers described here (it's an assay that's good for GRS but can't do monogenics). Orchid does monogenic screening though[1], because it's WGS, you can get in touch. [1] https://guides.orchidhealth.com/post/embryo-screening-and-hereditary-cancer https://guides.orchidhealth.com/post/embryo-screening-and-he...