Designer Babies

[sbs]

So what do you think - good idea or not?
*****************************************

A boy has been born to a British couple who want to use stem cells from his umbilical cord to treat an older brother with a life threatening blood disorder.
Michelle and Jayson Whitaker's baby, Jamie, was genetically selected while he was still an embryo to be a near perfect match to four-year-old Charlie.
The couple went to an American clinic for test tube baby treatment because the selection procedure is not allowed in the UK.
Jamie was born by Caesarean section in Sheffield on Monday and news of his arrival will reignite debate about so-called designer babies.
Dr Lana Rechitsky from the Reproductive Genetics Institute in Chicago, who matched the Whitaker tissues, told BBC Radio 5 Live that Jamie was the second baby born in Britain as a tissue match.
But the condition of the sibling of the first child has gone into remission and treatment had not been necessary so far.

Full story here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3002610.stm

[relic]

Well, in this case nobody has been hurt, and the older kid might have a chance at life. In IVF procedures, there are embryos that never get implanted anyway, so the 'rejected' embryos are not a new moral issue.

If each case is considered on its own merits, I don't see a problem. However, it does remind me strongly of Michael Marshall Smith's book, Spares.

relic

[music-is-redundant]

I think in that specific case I have nothing against it, even though I usually don't like to use our skills to 'trick' nature (in lack of a better word).
What I am against, is if people start using this knowledge to design babies the way they want them to look, ie someone wants a left handed baby, someone would want their kid to have blonde hair and blue eyes etc. Now that is something completely different.

[alexliamw]

Strongly against it. Its thin end of the wedge - and the other end is very scary. No parent will want their child to be anything but intelligent, good-looking, unrebellious....and this destroys the variation in the world, eccentricity even, that makes it such an interesting place. Parents who don't want the treatment will have children who can't get anywhere in life (hey, its Gattica!) or even worse it'll become a treatment for rich people only so that all rich people have superior children.

What if Shakespeare's parents had decided they didn't want him to be so rebellious and unconventional for the time?

What if John Lennon's parents had ensured his personality wouldn't be the type involved in rock n roll, or drugs?

What if Albert Einstein's parents had decided they didn't want him to be a nerd, and make sure he fit in better at school?

[Mattness]

Yeah, trouble is, where do you draw the line?
I dont have a problem with this particular case, but I disagree with the concept of 'messing' with nature in general, especially when it concerns something so natural as childbirth.

[music-is-redundant]

But this case wasn't about the attitude or personality of a person, it was to cure a blood disorder. Surely that's something different?! I agree there is a thin line which must not be crossed, but for medical purposes and can't make myself think it is wrong.

[Takk]

What do you think of James Watson's idea that stupidity is a genetic disorder, like any disease?

Shouldn't any child have the fundamental human right to grow up free of any disease, and on that basis shouldn't we use genetic techniques to the best of our ability to cure disorders?

Besides, making a baby with the right blood type is simple, changing the intelligence, or personality of a child is near impossible. That is done by upbringing or conditioning, which sounds far worse to me.

[al]

On its own merits this could be a reasonable case - but like so many of these issues it throws open a huge number of questions? On the face of it, with the techniques available today i see no reason why it shouldn't be done on purely pragmatic grounds. however, would the parents have had another child had the first one been OK? what about any psychological effect on either child, particularly the second one? and what if the treatment doesn't actually work? I really hope it does, because obviously this isn't something the family would have taken lightly - it's not exactly a decision they've been able to take in private.

I wish them all well for the future.

[swelegant]

I hope that Charlie gets better, but how would Jamie feel later on when he finds out that he was only born to help his brother? Maybe he might feel resentment at not being born with the sole reason of his parents wanting another child to love. I don't know, i have a lot of mixed feelings about designer babies. I guess i'll have to wait and see how children like Jamie respond to what happened when they're older to get a better idea of whether this is a good thing or not.

[JamesyEsquire]

I think the particular case is fully acceptable given the circumstances. On the other hand if it comes to the point where people can choose their child to be intelligent or have a particular hair colour then that is very dangerous, reminds me of Brave New World by Huxley actually. Of course everyone will want their child to be intelligent, if this happens then everything gets in a big mess really.
We need less intelligent people, mainly to do the jobs we need, taking away the trash, cleaning out toilets. If everyone was inelegant they would not have these jobs and a maybe far fetched but possible scenario is that slavery may come into it, from nations who don't have the ability to chose how their children's genes and such

[Laura Claudia]

I think it's a bit weird. I think it's weird having a baby just so they can use that baby's blood. I don't know, it just seems funny to me! But.. I can see why! I'm not sure I agree with it, though.