Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Couples offered designer babies

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the Scotland On Sunday site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 18 January 2009
HUNDREDS of Scottish couples are being offered a revolutionary screening service to create "designer babies" free of deadly genetic diseases.

The treatment – which could be funded by the NHS – involves taking a single cell from an embryo created using IVF and testing it for one of 200 rogue genes behind inherited conditions including cancers and cystic fibrosis.

The private clinic in
Glasgow will then implant only embryos guaranteed free of a specific genetic fault, charging £5,500 for each round of treatment.

It is the first time such a service has been offered north of the border, and last night at least eight Scottish health boards said they would consider funding the treatment on a case-by-case basis.

Health campaigners said they were delighted an end was in sight for the misery suffered by many couples who face the choice of not having children or conceiving a baby with a potentially deadly disease.

But the move has also caused controversy with church groups and ethicists warning the tests could be the first step on the road to eugenics – creating a "perfect" population.

The development follows the recent announcement of the birth of the first child in the UK to be selected as an embryo to be free of a gene linked to breast cancer.

The Scottish testing service is being launched later this year by the Glasgow Centre for Reproductive Medicine (GCRM), which has set up a link with a laboratory in England.

Using standard IVF techniques, couples will give their own eggs and sperm to create embryos in the Glasgow laboratory. A single cell from each embryo will be sent to the Care Fertility Clinic, Nottingham, to be tested for a specific genetic risk. Embryos guaranteed free will be implanted in Glasgow and the rest discarded.

The GCRM hopes to start by attracting one or two couples every month but ultimately hundreds could benefit annually.

Marco Gaudoin, the clinic's medical director, said: "It's hugely exciting and I think it has huge potential. For example the gene that causes breast cancer is not uncommon in Scotland.

"There's an ethical debate about how far we go. My view is that this is for genetic diseases. We are not screening for brown hair or for the perfect human person."

The treatment is so highly specialised that Scottish couples currently have to travel hundreds of miles south of the border for treatment.

Yesterday, health boards across Scotland confirmed they would consider funding couples to have preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD). NHS Forth Valley said requests would be "considered on a case-by-case basis in view of the individual clinical details".

Conditions that can be "screened out" include cancer caused by the BRCA1 gene defect. Others include cystic fibrosis which causes problems with the lungs and other organs. There are also rare

conditions such as fragile X, which causes physical and learning difficulties, and certain types of anaemia.

Kath McLachlan, a clinical nurse specialist at Breast Cancer Care, yesterday welcomed the development. She said: "Those carrying the faulty BRCA1 gene will be very interested in this latest development, which gives them another option to consider when starting a family.

"However there are many complex issues to take into account before undertaking PGD, and the decision will finally come down to an individual's personal ethics."

Helen Macfarlane, director of the Butterfly Trust, a Scottish support group for families with cystic fibrosis, said: "Cystic fibrosis sometimes restricts life choices for families and we would always aim to help increase choices that may improve quality of life.

"We recognise that preimplantation genetic diagnosis offers choices for carriers of the cystic fibrosis gene. This can be a liberating opportunity for some families and an undesirable option for others."

"We are here to offer support to families when they need it. Our approach to service provision is non discriminatory and our support is offered to families whatever their personal choices."

But Dr Calum MacKellar, director of research for the Scottish Council on Human Bioethics, said: "A societal discussion should take place relating to PGD because it develops the concept of eugenics and the positive genetic selection of in dividuals."

A spokesman for the Catholic Church in Scotland warned that the danger with the technique was that in the future far less serious illnesses would be screened out of the population.

He said: "This is not a cure for any disease, but a way of destroying those afflicted at the earliest stage of life. It is completely unethical and shouldn't be supported."

Case study: couple won't take a risk with their second child

The dilemma faced by Cassie Watson and her partner Stuart Wren goes to the heart of the designer baby debate. The couple have a beautiful two-year-old daughter Chloe, but she suffers from cystic fibrosis and her parents do not want to bring another child into the world with the disease.

Cassie and Stuart are considering preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) to help them guarantee a healthy child – and soon a Scottish fertility clinic will offer the screening service, which is capable of detecting up to 200 conditions.

But the issue has raised a huge moral debate, with the main concern the prospect that, in future, even slight imperfections could be "screened out" of the population.

Chloe, now two, has a mild form of the disease, but Cassie and Stuart, from Stranraer, know that if they have another baby it has a one-in-four chance of having the disease – a risk they are not prepared to take.

Cassie, a 28-year-old fund- raiser for the cystic fibrosis support group the Butterfly Trust, said: "We could go down the natural route and have a test at 11 weeks of pregnancy to check the unborn baby for the condition. If it is found to be positive we could carry on or have a termination. We could use donor eggs or we could have PGD."

Cassie would be unwilling to undergo a termination so she is considering PGD. She added: "I would feel irresponsible if I did not do something to stop this happening again. Everyone will have their own view on this, but my view is that this is what to do."

Karen and Neil Coates, from Chesterfield, Derbyshire, are expecting a baby in July free of muscular dystrophy that affects their 16-year-old son Jack. Karen, a 38-year-old sales assistant, had PGD at the Nottingham Fertility Clinic last year. She underwent a termination in 2007 when tests revealed the unborn child was a sufferer. She said: "We saw Jack change from an active toddler to a child who was falling down at his school sports day then become a wheelchair user who needs help having a bath and wiping his bottom. It's not very nice and I don't want to put anyone else through it."

Preimplantation genetic diagnosis is currently available on the NHS in Scotland, but only in a limited form.

A future possibility is testing the embryo for a variety of health problems with gene mutations. However, it is unclear whether this will ever be allowed because there may simply be too much opposition to the move.





The full article contains 1201 words and appears in Scotland On Sunday newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

 
1

Observer,,

Glasgow 18/01/2009 00:14:37
FFS these are not ''designer babies'' what a stupid headline. The article makes clear that the tests are to screen out genetic diseases. I am not being complacent, obviously the potential is there for parents to want to create a designer baby, but the medical research and practitioners involved in this field are heavily regulated with regard to moral and ethical consideration.

This article's headline is not justified by the content. Poor sub-editing from Scotland on Sunday.
2

,

18/01/2009 00:20:01
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
3

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 18/01/2009 00:46:37


My view while biased, I think is quite valid on this issue as an opinion, from DYW (darling young wife) and I, and one of issue for us.

When you get to the stage like us, 11years of trying to be lucky enough to conceive, and one IVF failure, for us, this would be not even an issue for us.

It is a little like, having more money than to know what to do with.

The Rich Guy:, "Honey"?

His Wife:, "What Darling"?

The Rich Guy:, "The Roles Royce, we are getting as a run-a-round, I think we should have, solid gold tyre valves fitted"

His Wife:, "Ooh Yes darling, and a diamond dashboard"!


Yes one should be soo lucky to even get Pregnant, far-less worry about, "designer babies, free of deadly genetic diseases"

And who is to say it is foolproof?

Was this not a vision, that a German leader had during the second world war, all babies, to have blond hair?, and look to where that took us all!

This may start with the best of intentions, but I am quite sure it would become common practice and get out off hand.

We on the other-hand would be only too delighted, to even get the chance of becoming Pregnant!

4

Observer,,

Glasgow 18/01/2009 00:57:09
Charles if you and your DYW are having IVF treatment then you are benefitting from the same science that is benefitting these people. It does not mean that we are going to breed a master race. There was lots of controversy at the time of IVF, although to be honest with you I don't remember but I confidently type that there was, and it's just another development. It won't lead to designer babies unless we all let it, so chill out.
5

Evolution in action,

18/01/2009 01:00:39

Prada, Versace or Gucci, sucj tough choices!
6

,

18/01/2009 01:10:50
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
7

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 18/01/2009 01:26:37


Observer ~4,

re: IVF, ours are only aided to develop a hopeful pregnancy, none the choice a, girl or boy, none the chance , hair and colour of eyes, non the choice if she or he is a "downs syndrome baby", etc.

More the aid for a couple to have the chance to become pregnant for a baby out of love, a loved baby, no-matter what lies ahead!


8

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 18/01/2009 01:32:05


Afterall if we wanted the perfect 'Tesco Baby' I am quite sure 'Tesco's' will be the place to go for one, one day, with a 'Money Back Guarantee'!

Because for some, this is what they want, just another comodity in their lives! (personal view only)


9

Observer,,

Glasgow 18/01/2009 01:36:29
It's regulated. All this is doing is weeding out genetic disease. Given a choice - which these parents have as they are not conceiving naturally - it seems like a good move to me.
10

,

18/01/2009 02:17:11
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
11

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 18/01/2009 02:46:46

J. Cheever Loophole ~10,

We are waiting, in anticipation, soo speak!, remembering the Scotsman's News rules of-course!


12

,

18/01/2009 03:25:18
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
13

e-sterka,

18/01/2009 03:43:03
What did you do with history, Scotty!?

Deleted?
The party is in power!:-)
14

,

18/01/2009 03:53:57
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
15

Lynne,

18/01/2009 04:26:52
Charles #11..have you considered surrogacy? Is that legal in the UK?
16

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 18/01/2009 04:53:40

Lynne ~15,

Yes it is, but their is for us, no need to go down that route yet, unfortunately my DYW, is shattered to say the least, that her first treatment of IVF failed, and I do understand this, 11 long years, and a glimpse off hope, ended in tears!

One must ask the question, as I do, how long can a Woman suffer, the agony? of not being able, just to conceive a wanted baby, far-less, wanting one that is free from all Ill's?

Lynne I have great respect for you, but there seems to be a new element on these pages, that want to mock, and make fool, of these forums.

Comments that have no relation to the subject matter, and are hurtful, for the ones like my wife and I who take it serious.

17

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 18/01/2009 05:26:55


re: This Article on Births,

I find it neither amusing of funny, anyone who makes mock, of an important issue, of a Baby that is to be brought into our world, albeit some may want a designer baby/children.

At the end off the day, wither "designer" or not, born perfect, or with disabilities, it comes down to the welfare and love the Baby will receive through their live into adulthood.

If one has been a Parent, one would Know this, to mock the subject as some find the need to do so, shows the person the are.

18

whatsyourname,

18/01/2009 05:36:54
WoW what next this is wrong!!
19

John Cameron,

St Andrews 18/01/2009 06:40:06
This could be a major contribution to the sum of human happiness. Why are we not surprised it provokes sour and negative responses from the churches?
20

Road to the isles,

18/01/2009 08:42:44
FFS you imbeciles. You obviously have no idea what it's like to have a child with cystic fibrosis or muscular dystrophy. This is a miracle for couples who do. Great stuff and let the churches go where they should - Hell - a concept they invented.
21

St Caledonia,

18/01/2009 09:04:44
Science is the only real diety we can believe in - It is no secret that science can doctor the longevity cells within the human DNA structure, thus offering humans the opportunity to live for 800 years. Suddenly those bible stories are not so hard to believe - It is no secret that science will deliver us space ships that travel at light speed, suddenly those fiery chariots flying in and out of the sky in the bible are not so far fetched - Science can allow us to clone in the image of ourselves - suddenly that god in the bible is not a god -
Science will take us to a time when we will clone our next generations, it will offer us the opportnity to install binocular vision, install varying degrees of sound wave hearing and keep us free from disease - Humans in the future will require it because the world they will be living in will be very different to the one we are familiar with. Space is where the future generations will be living and it is our responsibility now to ensure that we do the ground work for our future generations, just as Da Vinci, Newton and Flemming for example, did for us.
Any race who fail to work tirelessly for their future generations because they are holding on the past and their ancestors will NEVER advance - backward moving and downward thinking is for primitive species, forward thinking and upward thinking is for advanced people - we are advanced!
So let us look forward to the future as adults and let us remind ourselves that the myth of god must remain a myth until such times as the entity decides to show up - We cannot allow the notion of some god to keep us back, the reason that some Muslim nations are so far behind is because their religion keeps them there. We cannot let that happen in the western world because it is our duty to ensure that mankind has a future - god and the notion of a god can be adopted by those who need it, but it can never be permitted to stand in the way of human advancement - god must always be sidelined in the
22

St Caledonia,

18/01/2009 09:09:10
god must always be sidelined in the name of science
23

AbandonAllHope,

18/01/2009 09:36:25
Wow ! The Übermensch !
24

aljok.23,

the world 18/01/2009 09:45:47
I question only whether or not cutting something out of an embryo doesn't chop something off that is quite necessary for us as a species.
25

ZipptJeffrey,

castle 18/01/2009 09:51:13
What i find ironic is that a lot of asian, Indian, Pakistani couples who traditionally "value" the boy moreso than a girl, will pay for this service to ensure that they can gender select their child along with the screening. Quite ironic since thats what Hitler's eugenics movement was all about: creating "better" humans. Be careful of what you wish for....
26

,

18/01/2009 10:37:54
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
27

Martin_edinburgh,

Edinburgh 18/01/2009 10:45:32
This is how the Brave New World foretold by Aldous Huxley begins. What will we screen out next in the quest for the 'perfect' human being?
28

LAM,

Edinburgh 18/01/2009 11:04:34
Well I am all for this medical science has come along way. I was an RHF negative baby the second child which when my mother got pregant a third time was a living nightmare. They did not do theraputic abortions in the 60's. So she had to carry the baby to full term even though they had clearly said huge possibility child wont survive. He did.. thank go and has just become a father himself almost 2 years ago. They now correct this deadly condition by changing the babies blood while in the womb.. Not trying to offend those who think differently but the heart ache a woman (and man) feel when told their unborn baby is ill has to be one of the worst that you can imagine. If this process helps eradicate hese horrible inflictions both on the child and the parents then who in their right mind wouldn't want it?? There is no justice when a child is born to parents that abuse them and so many good people like yourself Charles and your wife that so desparetly want a baby, is see what your saying that you would be happy with any child without out making modifications. But really if we can stop a child from suffering the fates of those illness then we must. Good luck Charles.
29

LAM,

Edinburgh 18/01/2009 11:05:38
Sorry hit post without proof reading excuse mistakes.
30

Urban Guerrilla,

Edinburgh 18/01/2009 11:19:58
Terrifying news. I dread to think of where this may lead.
31

Gie's a break,

Edinburgh 18/01/2009 11:22:43
I am obviously setting the bar pretty high with this request, but could they design us some intelligent, honest and hard-working politicians and Bank Executives?

32

St Caledonia,

18/01/2009 11:51:24
Urban Gueriila

Terrified to where this may lead?
What sort of reaction is that? It will lead to future generations being equipped with the science they will require to survive - it will lead to where it leads - People who are scared off change remain in their caves, whereas people who embrace change venture out of their caves in search of new horizons and challenges.
The concept of a god cannot be allowed to hold man back, we must be permitted to push the boundaries and seek out new sciences and possibilities. Cloning is the future so embrace it
33

Herne the Hunter,

All of Scotland 18/01/2009 11:58:10
Perhaps we might create a designer God. A few drops of blood from the Turin shroud and off we go. Oh! I forgot that is said to be a fake.

Hey!,we don't even need a virgin these days.

Has the human race become so arrogant, that we have allowed the scientists to become God?

We do not need uniform perfect forms,that way leads to disaster for the human race. We need individual forms that are less than perfect,to be unique is perfect.


34

Stan Butler,

18/01/2009 12:02:36


The treatment costs £5,500.

How long before we have a 'premium brand' costing ten or a hundred times that?

But don't worry folks there's regulations in place to stop any abuse. You know, regulatory regimes, a bit like those for the financial and banking industries, and we all know how well they work. So just leave the doctors to it and don't worry about it.
35

aljok.23,

The World 18/01/2009 12:09:35
There seems to be many who blame the belief in a God or Great Spirit as holding the world back from progress. It seems to me they have been held back in their spiritual development and have never recovered. Belief in a God or Great Spirit is not necessarily required to question where the pitfalls lie within the progress of science. The type of pitfalls that are contemplated by 'The West' with Iran's quest for more power(ie. that it will be used for the misfortune of others). Anyone?
36

Urban Guerrilla,

Edinburgh 18/01/2009 12:13:34
#33, I don't share your wish to live in a world run by the likes of Dr Joseph Mengele. We've had a glimpse already of what it might be like. The door to a future of that kind must, for humanity's sake, be shut and bolted for ever.
37

danbob,

18/01/2009 12:44:38
Once upon a time people had children and never knew what the sex or whether or not the child might be healthy. But the human race fluorished and got on with it. Not any more it seems. Now we want to create what we want and if were not happy with the results we can just throw it away and start again. Thin end of the wedge this.
38

Dubhglas,

Johannesburg 18/01/2009 13:27:14
From a spititual point of view, I believe in Reincarnation and Transmigration of Souls like my Celtic ancestors. According to regression psycologists, soul incarnation occurs shortly before, or during birth. The human body is just a vessel. If it is faulty, it should be repaired, or preferably destroyed shortly after conception. I fully support PGD, it will illiminate so much suffering in this World. A friend of mine inherited Type 1 Diabetes through his mother- he went blind at 24, lost the use of his kidneys at 30, is now in a wheel chair, on dialysis, and infertile. The sooner we can get rid of all these genetic deseases at the embryonic stage, the better.

As for Eugenics, not a bad idea,- certain immigrant groups in this country (U.K.) should be sterilized, never mind "treated", before we Celts and Anlgo- Saxons become an ethnic minority in our own ancestral motherland, which is where we are headed by 2100.
39

Lynne,

18/01/2009 13:32:08
Charles,#16-17 there are so many things from anxiety to "blood being to thick" to hold on to a pregnancy. I agree with you, a baby is a baby..blessed either being perfect or not.
I hope things work out for you and the DYW..
40

Observer,,

Glasgow 18/01/2009 13:54:14
37 What a remarkably stupid post. What has Mengele got to do with screening genetic diseases ?

39 Correction - your post is even more stupid than 37. Keep your racist/fascist fantasies to yourself - this is about preventing genetically inherited diseases from causing people pain and illness, perhaps premature death. It is not about building a white master race.
41

Dubhglas,

Johannesburg 18/01/2009 14:19:17
#41. Ha Ha. I just knew I would get a reaction.

Actually I don't support what Josef Mengele did. I have Jewish friends, and fully support the State of Israel in it's battle against the "ragheads", although I don't support the killing and traumatising of innocents in Gaza. I am also not campaigning for a white master race. I am, however, in favour of maintaining en ethnic Celtic majority in Scotland, and an ethnic Anglo-Celtic- Saxon majority in England. The right to self determination is enshrined in the U.N Charter, though it is clearly not being applied here in the U.K.

I have given very solid medical reasons for supporting PGD which you obviously haven't read.

If you think I'm a fascist, you should ask English mothers from Yorkshire about what Asian crime syndicates are doing to their school-going daughters. If you don't believe me, please check out the facts for yourself. U.K. society is being undermined through the forced sale of sex and heroin right under our noses- of course the minority British Government of Maggie Broon and friends refuse to admit that there is a problem.

As for designer babies, this is probably going to happen, whether we like it or not, the Hollywood and European elite will probably do it, illegally or not. For most people, Eugenics will be unaffordable.

PGD is great and should be promoted throughout Scotland.
42

St Caledonia,

18/01/2009 14:39:16
Urban #37

You cannot possibly be serious?
How myopic.
Science must move forward on the quest to ensure that no baby is ever born with a defect - having put our trust in some flight of fancy god we have seen millions of babies born with deficiencies. Some are born joined at the head, others blind and deaf, others with cleft pallets, the list goes on. Is this the sort of pain and suffering you want? It figures you would know so much about the doctor you mentioned.
The future of the human race depends on science, it cannot depend on the invisible god..
43

Mcsnagpile,

18/01/2009 14:41:05
This is where the creationists fall down. It is not possible to create a designer baby. You can play about with the genes but you cannot anticipate the environment or the implications that will unfold. Genes have adapted to changes over billions of years and fade and grow according the surroundings. Somebody that dies young with cancer may have other things that make them successful in the survival stakes. The reality is that in pain or happiness only the winners survive.
44

danbob,

18/01/2009 14:43:54
43# Just a point for you to ponder. Although I hope you are young fit and healthy, can you be sure that in the coming years you won't contact a form of cancer. And if you did would you have been scrapped at an early stage by this scientific freak show?
45

St Caledonia,

18/01/2009 14:45:44
Dubhglas

I have Palestinian friends and I am completely against the Israeli carnage - only the other day an Israeli MP said that his governments actions reminded of the Nazi's -
How this topic has gone from science looking for ways to ensure that human babies are free from disease and genetic failure to this is beyond comprehension.
You should be ashamed
46

St Caledonia,

18/01/2009 14:52:33
danbob

Not sure I understand your question - But for ease of reference, I must point out that my health is of no concern here. I am supportive of this science for future generations.
We must give thought to future generations, just as Newton and Da Vinci did for us.
There is nothing wrong with designing life, we can create life in the image of ourselves and when we do we must do so with the sole intention of removing all chances of defect.
If you get sick you go to a doctor, if you get a growth you go to a doctor, if you get cancer you go for treatment, so what is wrong with having that treatment prior to birth as opposed to later in life?
47

danbob,

18/01/2009 14:58:27
47# What can you not understand about the question. You have no idea whatsoever about what ailments await you. If you have enjoyed your life, your kids, your grandkids maybe. How would you feel if one of the so called modern day gods had decided that because he thought you might contact a disease, all your posibilities in life were to be removed and you were to be flushed away. Nice in'it.
48

Observer,,

Glasgow 18/01/2009 15:06:55
48 You are misunderstanding the process there is no ''you'' to be flushed away.
49

danbob,

18/01/2009 15:19:24
49# Now you are just nit picking with the age of the embryo. It is still capable of becoming a living person when the testing takes place. Therefore if the decision to get rid (For the want of a better term) is made because somebody says the child may develop a disease, It is still a form of aborting. But lets look further at what they are screening for. One scientist once claimed that if peoples bodys didnt grow old and fail we would all die of cancer at some stage anyway. Cancer is a natural form of population control. Why remove it. Also the article says they can screen for anaemia. When was that fatal? It is just playing God, nobody knows what these fools will do next, or where it will lead.
50

St Caledonia,

18/01/2009 15:30:26
I think it is also important remember that all this science is in it's infancy, one day it will be perfected and therefore, we must push on.
Cloning is the future, there is no getting away from that. Future generations will not live the same lives we do now.
Take the eye for example and see how things have changed in the last 300 years. Back then if you had bad sight you were unlucky. But thankfully someone said that wasnt good enough and they developed the eye glass - some might have gasped and said, leave the eye as it is, it's just as god intended it - but commons sense must prevail. The eye glass then became glasses, glasses then became contact lenses, now there is new science that may one day cure blindness and in the future there will be built in binocular vision possibilities, that is progress -
Look at clocks. They used to be big things on buildings, then they were rather large and bulky grandfather clocks, then they were odd looking alarm clocks, then they became time pieces, then they became watches, then they became digital objects and so on until they become built in digital processing chips we can access at any time.
That is the future, embrace it because you cant change it.
God is obsolete, science is the only real thing we have when it comes to our future.
51

Observer,,

Glasgow 18/01/2009 15:34:26
50 so you view testing cells as the equivalent of abortion then ? OK from your point of view I suppose nothing like this will ever be acceptable, but you are in the minority.
52

stevek28,

philadlephia 18/01/2009 15:36:46
Misleading headline. Saving human beings either early death or painful disease is not designing babies. If, however, parents were able to choose what would later require plastic surgery then that would be correctly described as babies by design.
53

danbob,

18/01/2009 15:42:11
51# Ridiculous comparison. How anyone can compare the invention of an eye glass to aborting possible babies because they arn't perfect is daft. Hands up all the posters reading this who wouldn't be here if this nasty form of science had been around when you were born. If your hand stays down who can be sure it won't go up in the future. That's the reality of this form of tinkering. I will tell you this if any scientist ever said to me "Consider aborting your future child because we think they may MAY have anaemia" He had better duck quick.
54

St Caledonia,

18/01/2009 15:42:37
Interestingly, science has caught up to religion and surpassed it.
Science has proved that god is man - we can create life in the image of ourselves, we can doctor the longevity cells to increase the average age to whatever we want - therefore, 800 year old characters in the bible who were created in the image of god could have been created by man -
Science is not scary, it is exciting!
55

danbob,

18/01/2009 15:43:27
Well pointed out 53# And this is where the thin end of the wedge is.
56

St Caledonia,

18/01/2009 15:46:29
#51 danbob

Cmon wake up - the eye glass has nothing to do with it, we ALL know that. The point, is that invention, innovation and the dedication to the future force change in all aspects of life -
So in terms of medicine, the same innovation must also follow suit.
People suffering from cancer today try their best to get the disease out their system because that is the normal reaction. Why then is it abnormal to want to get it out of the system prior to life?
57

danbob,

18/01/2009 15:47:34
55# Why you insist on bringing God into it baffles me. All man has created is death on an ever increasing scale. Fascinating at a time when people are dying due to war and half of the planet is starving. Science wants to spend it's resorces designing humans. Now if they set about solving the starvation problem I could support that.
58

St Caledonia,

18/01/2009 16:00:55
danbob

I mention god because as the story points out, religious groups and churches are opposed.
Science is king -
And there is nothing you, me or anyone else can do to prevent the cloning of human beings, this current issue is just the beginning.
And in terms of war and killing, well that is just human nature, been happening for millenia - take a toy away from a 1 year old child and offer it to another child, THERE WILL BE TROUBLE! Nature eh
59

danbob,

18/01/2009 16:07:51
59# It's seems to me that the comments on here from the churches are very, very sensible and echo what a lot of people are saying and feeling.

So war is just human nature eh. Just to be dismissed as like removing a childs toy and giving it to another. Would you like to go to Gaza and explain that to the child of nine seen on TV lately, the child writhing in agony after being burned by white phospherous. Shamefull sentiments. But I am pleased we have got to the nitty gritty of what you are about.
60

St Caledonia,

18/01/2009 16:12:09
danbob

No I would not like to go to Gaza, but your comment was that science should halt in order to save the planet from wars. Well guess what, it should'nt. Man fights war because it is in our nature to do so, and people like you who apparently care so much tolerate the death in Gaza because at the end of the day whilst you wish it would stop you and the rest of the masses aint interested in trying to stop it - so forget war when speaking about science.
Science is attempting to cure embryo's from possible disease during life and that is noble.
Why not try and avoid human suffering in the form of disease?
61

St Caledonia,

18/01/2009 16:15:52
danbob

Another question, you said the church stance in this matter is sensible.
Tell me what is so sensible about failing to find a cure to all disease?
And tell me this - if you had cancer, would you seek medical assistance in the hope of removing it from your system?
If so, why not try and remove it from your system prior to life?
62

danbob,

18/01/2009 16:47:59
62# Because it's not really about removing diseases. It's about science playing God. That's what the churches are saying. And they will be proved right.
63

,

18/01/2009 18:39:09
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
64

,

18/01/2009 18:41:07
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
65

St Caledonia,

18/01/2009 19:07:19
danbob

What is wrong with science playing god, someone needs to because god certainly aint.
God is a nothing, god is missing in action entity, at least science is here in the now and not hiding in the sky.
Science is the new god, lets worship science.
66

Observer,,

Glasgow 18/01/2009 19:42:25
65 Your post does not make sense. First of all you make a statement about Adolf Hitler which has no relevance to this article, and secondly you make the valid point that this treatment will be available privately, but is not guaranteed to patients receiving treatment from the NHS. However, over time I would hope that the costs would come down and it will be.

66 Numpty was making the valid point that those who have moral objections to this science do not need to receive treatment which involves it. They can refuse. But the churches object to this treatment being carried out on anyone - in doing so they are seeking to impose their moral view on other people who do not share it. Happily, with this and other similar issues, they will be unsuccessful.

67

danbob,

18/01/2009 19:47:50
67# You just talk sh**.
Ribbonman 65 & 66 you intrigue me. You go from slating religion on some threads to defending christians right of free thinking. Of course I find myself agreeing with you. You are correct about Adolf. Here is something else that is contentious. A lot of christian scholers now think Adolf Hitler got his ideas of calling his regime the 1000 year richt from the book of revelation. In revalation it speaks of Christs 1000 year reign. Good old Adolf may have thought he was the new God selecting a new human race. It's a contentious theory but one that is gathering pace. Can you imagine what would have happened in the 1930s if he had todays knowledge.
68

Observer,,

Glasgow 18/01/2009 19:53:04
69 If he had today's knowledge then so would everyone else. You really are barking up the wrong tree equating this to nazi-ism, it's about preventing disease. Of course this science has the potential to do harm, but so does every science. If we didn't develp ideas because they had the potential to do harm, then we would all still be sitting in caves, not typing into our computers.
69

danbob,

18/01/2009 20:03:45
68# A spokesman for the catholic church in Scotland warned that a danger of the technique was that in the future far less serious illnesses would be screened out of the population.
He said "This is not a cure for any disease but a way of destroying those afflicted at the earliest stage of life"

Now tell me where in those paragraphs the church dosn't want you to be able to access this fantastic new medical service?
70

danbob,

18/01/2009 20:07:50
70# You really want to read about Hitler. Fascinating mind but terrifying if a man like that lived today and had the power he did.
71

Observer,,

Glasgow 18/01/2009 20:17:29
71 The Catholic church objects to any scientific procedure which involves the destruction of cells from the embryo. By definition this science in screening cells is going to be essentially ''picking'' what ones will live. That's fair enough, that is their opinion, and it is perfectly in order for anyone - like yourself who equates this with abortion - not to avail yourself of it. But the point Numpty is making, and I agree with him, is that when we see the Catholic church seeking to restrict science (as they did with the embryo bill) because of their theologial position on the sanctity of life (and where that starts) then they are in effect trying to tell people who do not share their position what to do.

I agree Hitler would have been terrifying, but then so would Stalin and possibly our side too.
72

danbob,

18/01/2009 20:36:03
73# I am no friend of the catholic church. I hate their hypocricy. But I think on this one they are right. It dosn't matter what you belive, either religious or not. The fact is that the human race has developed the understanding of the make up of a living person. But what we haven't acquired and never will is the ability to cure diseases at the embryo stage. Screening is not curing. So what happens when they find a so called genetic fault. The only option is to ignore it or destroy it. Can you imagine the scinario.

"Hello Mrs Smith we have screened your IVF embriyo and we think the resulting child may be susceptible to Anaemia. Do you want us to get rid"? Meanwhile Mrs Smith goes through life wondering if they were right all along.

So where do we go from there? Well since they can only screen IVF embriyos is IVF going to be the new star spangled conception choice of the rich. A bit like too posh to push. Also ask yourself with all honesty have you got or may you get in the future an illness that would have resulted in you not being here to read this, if this technique had been around then. Do you feel so valueless that you would have been happy for your parents to have never given you a chance. It is a can of worms to me.
73

Observer,,

Glasgow 18/01/2009 21:20:13
74 As far as I know in IVF there are multiple embryos. As I don't see cells in a test tube as being a life I don't have a problem with certain ones being picked to be implanted over certain other ones. If it prevents people from having genetically inherited disease then that's an advantage in my eyes. As I said, this field of science is heavily regulated, whatever comes next will be scrutinised just the same as this has been.
74

,

18/01/2009 21:21:16
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
75

,

18/01/2009 21:33:08
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
76

Lgi,

Austalia 18/01/2009 22:09:34
#54 I am not sure people are running out terminating pregnancies because they MIGHT have x, y or z! We are talking about conclusive genetic testing. And don't think for are second these decisions are made lightly!!!
77

Lgi,

Australia 18/01/2009 22:13:04
I am a mother to a beautiful 6 year old girl who suffers from Cystic Fibrosis. We didn't choose CF for her and if I could take it away, I would in a heartbeat. We have a second child, little boy, who like my husband and myself, is a carrier of the CF gene. It was an agonising pregnancy waiting to see if he would be affected. We are expecting our third child next month and conceived this baby through the ivf and pgd program. This was not a decision we made lightly. We love both our children with all our hearts and in our eyes they are each perfect in every way. We did not choose ivf/pgd in the hope of getting a 'designer baby'. My daughter has chest physiotherapy twice a day to move thick mucous from her lungs to minimise lung infections. This is intensive and time consuming. She swallows 25 enzyme capsules daily to digest her food. She has had repeated bowel blockages, regular tummy pain and digestive issues. Every cough or cold is treated aggressively with copius amounts of antibiotics-sometimes oral, sometimes nebulised and sometimes intra venously which requires a hospital admission. Every 10 weeks she has a tube stuck down her throat which collects sputum. This is tested for bacteria so we can treat any sinister bugs quickly and effectively. It is a quick procedure, I restrain her on my lap while she cries and gags. A bag of jelly beans soon makes it all ok. Every 3 months we travel 6 hours to our nearest CF Clinic for checks with a lung specialist, gastroentologist,dietician,physiotherapist, chest xrays, blood tests and lung function tests. We are extremely committed to her health needs, it is simply a part of life as we know it and we are extremely grateful cf is all we have to deal with. As a mum, my greatest struggle is knowing my child have a shortened life, wondering when we will lose her, how will I answer her questions-will I be good enough? Let me say again, we did not choose ivf/pgd in the hope of a 'designer baby'. We have tested for ONE disease which
78

Lgi,

Australia 18/01/2009 22:16:07
as I was saying... We have tested for ONE disease which we know we are genetic carriers of-our baby may have some other condition or issue, hell there are gazillions. We see this as our responsiblity to our daughter with cf-having a sibling can jepordise her health due to cross infection of lung bacterias, to our son, because already there is so much time taken from him due to caring for our daughter as well not choosing for him to experience the death of two siblings,to our unborn baby-why would we knowingly give another child a life shortening condition when we have an option to prevent this. I once heard a teenager with cf speak at a conference and when asked what the worst thing about having cf was, she answered that is was watching her older sister with cf die and knowing that it was her own fate. That cemented my decision not to have another child with cf. I respect these issues are controversial but we have made the the choices that are best for our family and to the critics..walk in our shoes before you judge too harshly. To those trying to conceive a baby, I sincerely wish you success and pray you are blessed with not only a child but a healthy child.
79

Stan Butler,

18/01/2009 23:25:44

#75 'As I said, this field of science is heavily regulated, whatever comes next will be scrutinised just the same as this has been.'

Indeed.

Regulated by people like Baroness Warnock.

This is what she had to say about people with dementia

'If you're demented, you're wasting people's lives – your family's lives – and you're wasting the resources of the National Health Service'

So, no need to worry. Lots of regulation in place. That's OK then.
80

Thelma,

Australia 19/01/2009 00:06:21
Oh how I agree with post 80. Many years ago, back in Scotland I met a lady in the maternity ward and we became good friends. But her and her husband both carried the Cystic fibrosis gene and her first little girl died aged six after a short life of all the same pain and suffering as is mentioned in that post. Their second child, a son died aged 14. The night before he was due to be flown to London for a heart and lung transplant. This gene screening would have been a Godsend to them had it been available at that time. Anyone who has seen all the pain and agony of losing both of your children to that dreadful disease would know that this treatment is a miracle. And no reason for anyone who believes in God to have a problem with it - I'm sure jesus would have approved.
81

Father of daughter with Cystic Fibrosis,

Los Angeles 19/01/2009 05:19:27
Bless you #79-80 for putting this discussion in the proper context.

I too have a beautiful daughter (two years old)who suffers from CF and I would do anything if I could remove that burden from her life. My wife and I ave recently used PGD to conceive and are expecting our second child and we didn't hesitate for a moment to utilize science to reduce the chances of our child having a devastating incurable genetic disease.

We're not talking about chosing the sex, a hair color, athletic ability, inteligence, etc. We're talking about removing the chances of incurable genetic disease.
82

Al's maw,

in your face 23/01/2009 14:15:45
HAHAHA!!...YES. I knew it. From time to time I visit this site and it's always the same moronic tw@t who makes the first comment on every, single headline. He then proceeds to argue with everyone else on the site and by the end he's completetly forgotten what he's said in earlier posts,and what side of the arguement he's even on. OBSERVER you little moron, thanks for not letting me down and giving us a laugh again.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 

Featured Advertising



Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.