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

  • Thread starter Thread starter gravenewworld
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Disease
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the ethical implications of allowing carriers of genetic diseases, particularly autosomal dominant disorders like Huntington's disease, to procreate. It highlights the potential benefits of genetic screening for recessive disorders, such as sickle cell anemia, which may confer advantages to carriers. The conversation also addresses the role of technology, including in vitro fertilization, in mitigating the risks of genetic diseases. Ethical concerns regarding the definition of "genetic diseases" and the implications of embryo screening are also emphasized.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of autosomal dominant and recessive genetic disorders
  • Familiarity with genetic screening techniques
  • Knowledge of in vitro fertilization (IVF) processes
  • Awareness of ethical considerations in genetic engineering
NEXT STEPS
  • Research genetic screening methods for recessive disorders
  • Explore the ethical implications of embryo screening in IVF
  • Study the advantages of heterozygous carriers in genetic diseases
  • Investigate the definitions and classifications of genetic diseases
USEFUL FOR

Ethicists, genetic counselors, healthcare professionals, and individuals interested in the implications of genetic disorders and reproductive technologies.

gravenewworld
Messages
1,129
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.
 

Similar threads

Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 516 ·
18
Replies
516
Views
39K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
13K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
6K