Monday, October 16, 2006

Prevention better than the cure? #1




















Agent Fang said...

There's a 50-50 chance my condition would be passed on to my children. Except I prefer to have dogs, so I'm not going to have any children. When people ask me THAT question in relation to the situation, I point out number 4 It does some harm but not enough to seriously impair survival and successful reproduction. And also that the world is a richer place for diversity, whether it be religious, racial, sexual or genetic... :0)

James Medhurst said...

There are other possibilities. For example, some combinations of genes, that aid survival and reproduction, can lead to less favourable outcomes when they combine in different ways. An example is the genetic link between schizophrenia and artistic creativity. This means that it is impossible to eliminate the supposedly negative traits without getting rid of the positive aspects as well.

Many Nobel Laureates, including the geneticist James Watson, have had disabled children and yet people are still willing to pay a fortune for their sperm!

Anonymous said...

You should do a little research and look up Brie Walker, and Jim Lamply(sp on both?). Brie was a news anchor for a major s california tv station that had a disability that mader her hands and feet look like crab claws. Her husband Jim is a famous sports anouncer. They married many years ago and decided to have kids knowing that a strong chance existed the disability would be passed along. It created a storm of controversity in s cal press and talk radio about the disabled having kids. It ended up being a valuable discussion.

The Goldfish said...

Fang - the world is indeed, a richer place.

James - this is true. I attempted to explain all this, but then decided they still counted as category (1). We have very many genes which help us in one regard and hinder us in another, but if they have helped more than hindered (in the particular circumstances that organism finds themselves in), they survive. Frankly, a human being is not the optimum design for standing on its hind legs; the fact we do that condemns a certain proportion of us to back pain and injury. There are also things which helped at one point, but didn't go away when they were no longer useful. Perhaps I should write a bit about this too, but genetics is a bit of a pet subject and I could contribute toward impairment by boring everyone stiff. ;-)

Al - I'll have a rummage, see if I can find that story thank you.

BloggingMone said...

I agree to Agent Fang, diversity is very much needed as it also creates different views of the world, which can only be a good thing. As you pointed out most of the disabilities are not hereditary to 100%. And sometimes it is ablessing that a disabled child also has disabled parents. When I sit in class at a deaf school, it only takes me 10 to 15 minutes to spot out those children, who have got deaf parents. They usually are the brighter ones, because they have a well functioning family communication and a lot more self-esteem.
I think to a large part it is a problem of society in general and of doctors in particular. Mothers are recommended to have checked at a very early stage of their pregnancy, wether the child is likely to have a disability or not. If so abortion is recommended quite openly. If mothers decide agains being tested, then there is a great danger of being accused to have given birth to a disabled child, even though having a child like this is no longer necessary.
This is a problem we should be working on instead of spending billions on all kind of genetic research and so-called medical progress.

Charlesdawson said...

Goldfish, I would like to add to your list of mutations, those which have a survival value in some circumstances (which is why they continued to be bred) but a negative survival value in others.

Such as sickle-cell trait and the minor thalassaemias, both of which protect against some forms of malaria and are therefore of value in contries where malaria is endemic.

Unfortunately, inbreeding means that instead you get a double dose of the genes, which results in sickle-cell anaemia and thalassaemia major both of which are serious, disabling conditions and in extreme cases fatal.

There may well be other conditions which also have this built-in, we don't know yet, but say if it were possible to eliminate the gene for Huntingdon's and it was found that all along it had conferred protection against, say, some untreatable forms of cancer?

Timmargh said...

*raises hand ... with difficuly*

I'm a mutation but I'm not a monster ... honest!

Like Fang there's a 50/50 chance of my condition going to my children but, also like Fang, I prefer dogs! Kids are great when they're someone else's because you can hand them back when they start crying and I'm far too selfish with my time to take on the responsibility of a tiny life to look after.