|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Wed Dec 05, 2007 1:17 pm
The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill has been drafted by the UK government this month, to update the laws concerning the use of embryos in research, and in IVF. The Bill is expected to come into action in 2009.medicalprotection.org The key elements of the Bill are:
* Regulating the use of embryos outside the body.
* Banning the selection of the sex of offspring for non-medical reasons.
* Removing the need for a father when pursuing fertility treatment, introducing a duty to take account of “the welfare of a child”.
* Recognising same-sex couples as legal parents of children conceived through the use of donated sperm etc.
* Easing restrictions on using HFEA-collected data.
* Increasing the scope of embryo research, including regulation of “inter-species embryos”. Health Minister: Dawn Primarolo The UK is a world leader and a good place to do research. This Bill will allow legitimate medical and scientific use of human reproductive technologies for research to flourish in this country, while giving the public confidence that they are being used and developed sensibly with appropriate controls in place.
I believe this Bill will provide clarity and assurance to patients, researchers, the medical profession, and the public for years to come.
However, the Bill has to be accepted by the House of Lords first, where the Bishops are, not that that is likely to do a lot of difference. I'm bringing this up because I've heard a lot of people talk of theocracies in the past, of seperation of Church and State. The questions here are not simply related to research and medical possibilities, but how far should the Church seek to intervene? Of course, there is the issue of medical ethics. Should -any- research be permitted, by law, on embryos, and should parents or scientists choose which characteristics are desirable?
Discussion:
-should any research using embryos (inside or outside of the womb) be permitted?
-how far, if at all, should the Church intervene in legal matters?
-should the state be allowed to say which characteristics are desirable in a child and which are not?
Like always, I'll say what I think later; I've tried to be as neutral as I could.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 05, 2007 11:14 pm
Good topic, Nemi, and one that I have sort of mixed feelings about. I'll just stick to answering your questions for now, since I'm not really sure where to begin.
-should any research using embryos (inside or outside of the womb) be permitted?
That's a bit of a tough one for me. I certainly don't think that research that allows people (be they the parents or the government) has the ability to choose a child's traits should be allowed. That kind of scares me a lot. But things like embryonic cells being the possible cure/effective treatment for a lot of really horrible diseases...that's where I'm a little torn.
-how far, if at all, should the Church intervene in legal matters? Not at all. While I love and respect the Church, I also believe strongly in separation of church and state. Religious institutions may, of course, voice disapproval with any given policy, but anything beyond that is not okay with me.
-should the state be allowed to say which characteristics are desirable in a child and which are not? Absolutely not. Brave New World, anyone? Or for those of you who don't read, Gattaca.
No. It's creepy and dystopian. 'Nuff said.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2007 11:46 pm
One of the major reasons for embryonic research is so that parents at high risk for having children with genetic disorders (such as Downs Syndrome) would be able to choose to have a "normal" child instead. Now yes, that is a much more compelling argument than, "we want our baby to have blue eyes and curly hair and be good at playing music because we think that would be neat!" However, this is NOT a cure or treatment for unborn children with genetic diseases, it's a way of discriminating against embryos with disabilities and rejecting them in favor of the embryos considered more "perfect" by the parents.
Now a lot of people think this is a great idea because it would give the parents assurance of having a "normal" family, and it is truly hard to raise a child with severe disabilities. But then, how far is too far? I remember reading one article that listed eczema as one of the genetic diseases you could one day select against when having children this way. I was against it before reading that, but it really drove the point home for me-- both I and my boyfriend have eczema. It's basically just dry skin and sometimes an itchy rash. It's kind of scary to hear that by someone's standard, we are defective and should never have been born. So yeah, like Enj said... creepy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2007 4:03 am
Rosa Quietus It's kind of scary to hear that by someone's standard, we are defective and should never have been born. Yeah. Definitely creepy. And a lot of this comes down to...well, what is "perfection" in human beings, exactly, and who gets to decide this? I'm not saying that it's easy to raise a child with a disability, or that some people's lives wouldn't have been easier if their parents had said, upon their conception, "Thanks, but we'd rather our child be heterosexual, have a high metabolism, and not have *insert physical/psycholgical abnormality here*." But honestly, as a parent and as a person, you're stuck with what God gives you. Suck it up and make the best of it. I find a diverse world to be a lot more interesting. I don't want a government deciding that various people are somehow imperfect, undesirable, or defective, and we should avoid making more people like them. Yeah. Creepy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 7:33 am
Okay, well, I hope I was being pretty neutral, because I wanted to see if you met the same conclusions as another concerned group. A lot of people often put any objections to this kind of law down as being a religious way of thinking, but there has been an outcry from the disabled community in the UK, as well as particular groups like the Deaf community. These are groups whose history, culture, and sometimes language is threatened by this bill, and they see it as a mirror of previous fascist attempts of ethnic cleansing.
And there's already some satire available.
It's kinda interesting having the same response.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 05, 2008 8:15 am
ya i just think the entire thing overall is wrong. we cant go around playing God that doesnt work. im sure hes gonna be atleast a lil upset that we decided to change babies from something only he could decide into a medical research thingy. God makes children with diseases as a test for the parents. its there so as to teach the parents a certain lesson may it be patience or maybe to show them to be more loving. its just what God decides and we cant go screwing around with that. and im all for the church jumping in to intervene but heck id prolly be a templar if this was the 1100's so ya im rather big on the whole world being catholic i just think itd be nice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 06, 2008 11:48 am
-should any research using embryos (inside or outside of the womb) be permitted?
We should reasearch them for diseases. If we can treat them, we can save the baby when it comes out.
-how far, if at all, should the Church intervene in legal matters?
None at all. If anything, this will have the opposite effect. More people would lash out at the Church for going into government.
-should the state be allowed to say which characteristics are desirable in a child and which are not?
Well, if the charateristics are deadly/cause problems with the brain, yes. Skin conditions? No. I believe to doing as little to the babies as possible. I am not God, so I am not going to mess with them that much to choose their hair and eye color. It is not my place to do so.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
