Should people who are carriers for genetic disease be allowed to procreate?

  • Thread starter Thread starter gravenewworld
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Disease
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the ethical implications of allowing individuals with autosomal dominant diseases, such as Huntington's disease, to procreate, given the high likelihood of passing on severe genetic disorders to their offspring. It highlights the distinction between autosomal dominant and recessive disorders, noting that carriers of recessive disorders may have advantages, such as increased malaria resistance in sickle cell anemia. Advances in technology, including genetic screening for couples and in vitro fertilization with embryo screening, offer potential solutions to mitigate the risks of genetic diseases, though these methods raise significant ethical questions. A key concern is the definition of "genetic diseases" and who determines this classification, as the severity of conditions varies widely. The conversation also touches on the complexity of evolution, suggesting that what is considered beneficial or harmful can depend on specific environmental contexts.
gravenewworld
Messages
1,128
Reaction score
27
Especially people who carry autosomal dominant horrific diseases like Huntington's disease. Should these people be allowed to procreate when there is an extremely high chance that their children will suffer from terrible disease in the future?
 
Last edited:
Biology news on Phys.org
Autosomal dominant diseases are a different issue, but many recessive disorders are thought to confer some advantage to carriers who are heterozygous but not homozygous for the mutant allele. The classic example is sickle cell anemia; people with only one copy of the sickle cell gene have an increased resistance to malaria.

Now, technology can help alleviate the problems associated with genetic disorders. For recessive disorders, couples can get screened to check whether they are carries for some of the same diseases and provide the necessary information if that does turn out to be the case. It may also be possible for couples at risk of producing an offspring with a genetic disease to perform in vitro fertilization and screen for embryos lacking the disease (of course, there are important ethical issues with screening embryos, but that's another topic entirely).

One important ethical concern regarding the problem is how are "genetic diseases" defined, and who defines them? Obviously there are some very horrible diseases like Huntington's disease and cystic fibrosis, but not all diseases are so bad. For example, would something relatively innocuous like color blindness be considered? What about something like phenylketonuria, which can cause severe problems if left untreated, but with treatment sufferers of the disease can live relatively normal lives?
 
The problem here of course is that evolution is not a great chain of being and does not progress on a global scale. Something can only be said to be beneficial or deleterious compared to a specific environment. For instance, there is a very good reason why we don't just kill all 'natural' potatoes and put out an 'artificial' genetically engineered super potato.
 
Chagas disease, long considered only a threat abroad, is established in California and the Southern U.S. According to articles in the Los Angeles Times, "Chagas disease, long considered only a threat abroad, is established in California and the Southern U.S.", and "Kissing bugs bring deadly disease to California". LA Times requires a subscription. Related article -...
I am reading Nicholas Wade's book A Troublesome Inheritance. Please let's not make this thread a critique about the merits or demerits of the book. This thread is my attempt to understanding the evidence that Natural Selection in the human genome was recent and regional. On Page 103 of A Troublesome Inheritance, Wade writes the following: "The regional nature of selection was first made evident in a genomewide scan undertaken by Jonathan Pritchard, a population geneticist at the...

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
516
Views
35K
Replies
1
Views
13K
Replies
6
Views
4K
Replies
4
Views
5K
Replies
3
Views
6K
Back
Top