• Xenforo Cloud upgraded our forum to XenForo version 2.3.4. This update has created styling issues to our current templates. We will continue to work on clearing up these issues for the next few days, but please report any other issues you may experience so we can look into. Thanks for your patience and understanding.

3-parent IVF in the news

amy8686

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2012
Messages
355
Reaction score
2
What do you all think of this 3-parent IVF research that's in the news today as it undergoes FDA review? I find it encouraging that they are still making technological breakthroughs (and that the medical community seems mostly to be supportive of these breakthroughs).

On top of that, though, my reaction keeps going back to almost a fear that they're going to completely solve infertility when it's JUST too late for me. Clearly I want scientists to make every possible advance, whenever they can, but I can't get away from the feeling that I'll be bitter if it just misses me.

Tell me I'm not the only terrible person who feels that way? :)
 
You're not alone.

Although my biggest fear in that regard is that in just a couple of years IVF is going to be exponentially less expensive or even completely covered by insurance due to such advances....after forking over tens of thousands out of pocket for us to do it now. Of course it would be great for future couples, but what about us?! I'm sure others even five years ago felt the same way.

Life just isn't fair sometimes :(


As far as the three way genetic technology goes the news story I watched on it the commentators were concerned about it being a slippery slope. I think things cross a line if the technology is set to be used to create made to order babies in the boy/girl, blonde/brown hair, blue/brown eyes departments, but if it's being used to weed out otherwise unavoidable mitochondrial defects, why not? I don't think there's anything designer about avoiding horrific genetic diseases when bringing children into the world. If that's the case then isn't it the exact same ethical argument when women take folic acid to avoid neural tube defects? Or when a woman gets betamethasone shots to prematurely mature a baby's lungs in utero? All are efforts to prevent illness or sustain the short and long term health of a baby coming into the world, so why is this any different?

Is it truly better to keep bringing babies into the world who will otherwise live a life of suffering?
 
its good, Im hoping to do my PHD through newcastle at the center for life (where this was discovered) although it will be between 3 and 5 years from now but I cant wait, just makes me more excited as its such a great area for making breakthroughs

hopefully some time in the future ill be able to change thing for someone
 
You're not alone.

Although my biggest fear in that regard is that in just a couple of years IVF is going to be exponentially less expensive or even completely covered by insurance due to such advances....after forking over tens of thousands out of pocket for us to do it now. Of course it would be great for future couples, but what about us?! I'm sure others even five years ago felt the same way.

Life just isn't fair sometimes :(


As far as the three way genetic technology goes the news story I watched on it the commentators were concerned about it being a slippery slope. I think things cross a line if the technology is set to be used to create made to order babies in the boy/girl, blonde/brown hair, blue/brown eyes departments, but if it's being used to weed out otherwise unavoidable mitochondrial defects, why not? I don't think there's anything designer about avoiding horrific genetic diseases when bringing children into the world. If that's the case then isn't it the exact same ethical argument when women take folic acid to avoid neural tube defects? Or when a woman gets betamethasone shots to prematurely mature a baby's lungs in utero? All are efforts to prevent illness or sustain the short and long term health of a baby coming into the world, so why is this any different?

Is it truly better to keep bringing babies into the world who will otherwise live a life of suffering?

unfortunately this exists already... luckily its illegal in most places for vanity reasons, however you can still test embryos for sex selection etc... in some countries and only transfer the one that match your demands

unluckily its still legal in most country's for 'organ' harvesting... where a couple with an ill child will use IVF to birth a 'genetically compatable' child which wont necessarily happen naturally, they are then harvested of blood, bone marrow, kidneys, tissues etc... if your interested you may want to watch the film 'my sisters keeper' which is an amazing film based on true life of one of these 'donor' babies *warning its a sad film though*
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
1,650,346
Messages
27,147,125
Members
255,792
Latest member
dspls
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "c48fb0faa520c8dfff8c4deab485d3d2"
<-- Admiral -->