Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    Zippy phrasing Douglas!

    lower than whale sh*t
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zooropa)
    Should people with hereditary diseases be sterilised?

    If a woman has a family history of breast cancer, should she sterilised?
    depends on severity (i.e whether theres a cure)

    and whether its gauranteed that the children will definately inherit and exhibit the symptoms.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by technik)
    depends on severity (i.e whether theres a cure)

    and whether its gauranteed that the children will definately inherit and exhibit the symptoms.
    There is always the chance of a random mutation which would effectively prevent a genetic disorder from being passed on. It's a highly improbable chance, but, with genetics, everything winds up as statistics.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by *steph 247*)
    :eek: No they should not be sterilised!

    You are still going to get genetic diseases fro mutations anyway, and as someone has already pointed out, it is not guarenteed that the offspring will have the disease, or even be carriers, they could be perfectly healthy
    So sterilise them also....
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zooropa)
    So sterilise them also....
    so really we should sterilise everyone then?

    if we were haploid rather than diploid organisms apparently (so says a lecturer) ~ half of us would die or have not been born due to rare recessive fatal allelles.

    & then when you take into account the fact the nature of most mutations is that they originally occur randomly.

    or that even genetically 'perfect' people can become disabled/impaired through physical accident.

    the obvious solution is yes, we should sterilise everyone! oh, but won't this mean that.. :rolleyes:
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by technik)
    depends on severity (i.e whether theres a cure)

    and whether its gauranteed that the children will definately inherit and exhibit the symptoms.
    what happens in the case is selection of an embryo that doesn't have the genetic disease and so that it is NOT passed onto the embryo so thus no need for sterilisation... anyway, it is unethical, you don't have the right to sterilise anyone against their will...



    i would also like to point that basically all disorders of recessive genetic diseases are from parents who are carriers but do not know that they are carriers... so one day you may give birth to someone with sickel cell anaemia, cystic fibrosis...etc. Even then there is only a 25% chance that their children would develop the disease. Suffers of these recessive conditions can have the embryo tested to make sure that their children are carriers of the disorder and do not suffer from the disorder.

    Also, X-lined recessive disorders can have female carriers (who never suffer or are carriers because they have 2 X genes, the recessive one always degenerates) but any male children they have have a 50% chance of suffering from that diseaes
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Genetic disorders come about in two ways. either they are the consequence of a sponaneous mutation on a chromosome or they have been inherited for a long time. The former will vanish naturally eventually. The latter usually are associated with genetically beneficent traits- that is why the genetic disorder has been passed on for many generations despite its deleterious effects. As Darwin himself pointed out we cannot know enough about the long-term effects of such policies to carry them out effectively or wisely. the evil is immediate, the potential good contingent and hypothetical.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Weejimmie)
    Genetic disorders come about in two ways. either they are the consequence of a sponaneous mutation on a chromosome or they have been inherited for a long time. The former will vanish naturally eventually. The latter usually are associated with genetically beneficent traits- that is why the genetic disorder has been passed on for many generations despite its deleterious effects. As Darwin himself pointed out we cannot know enough about the long-term effects of such policies to carry them out effectively or wisely. the evil is immediate, the potential good contingent and hypothetical.
    That is true for pretty much all recessive disorders. But something like Huntingdon's doesn't fit into either of those classes. As that acts late in life it is not subject to selective pressures.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Weejimmie)
    Genetic disorders come about in two ways. either they are the consequence of a sponaneous mutation on a chromosome or they have been inherited for a long time. The former will vanish naturally eventually.
    What are you talking about? If this was the case then no evolution would occur at all - A mutation to a chromosome will, ofcourse vanish naturally if it is not beneficial, but If it is chances say that it will not.
    If your statement is the case, how would you even get inherited mutations?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Golden Maverick)
    But something like Huntingdon's doesn't fit into either of those classes. As that acts late in life it is not subject to selective pressures.
    now that's just unimaginative! surely you can think of some balanced polymorphism-esque selection advantages from the Huntington allele? did B.S. not give you his theory? :p:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bikerx23)
    What are you talking about? If this was the case then no evolution would occur at all - A mutation to a chromosome will, ofcourse vanish naturally if it is not beneficial, but If it is chances say that it will not.
    If your statement is the case, how would you even get inherited mutations?
    I'm talking about genetic disorders- mutations where the deleterious effects outweigh the beneficial ones from an evolutionary standpoint. I said specifically that if the concomitant beneficial effects outweighed the damaging effects the mutation would continue to be passed on through inheritance- which is, i understand, the way evolution works. I said nothing about exclusively beneficial mutations because we weren't discussing them.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zooropa)
    I think they should.



    They shouldn't be. They should be eradicated.
    Say if you have a child who has a physical diability would you kill him/her??? :confused:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    What about someone with a personality disability? Should people be killed just for being damned nuisances?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zooropa)
    I think they should.
    Didn't you used to be a libertarian?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Akhoza)
    Say if you have a child who has a physical diability would you kill him/her??? :confused:
    No, but I wouldn't love them, since they're disabled.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zooropa)
    No, but I wouldn't love them, since they're disabled.
    why does love have anything to do with physical condition?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    It may mean something, who knows?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zooropa)
    It may mean something, who knows?
    true, but if it is the sole defining factor you must have led a life that none could envy.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zooropa)
    The risk is too great. All disabilities should be eradicated.
    And in doing so we will in fact weaken our genes because as well as all genetic conditions being 'bred' out, so will other beneficial genes.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by juueru_chou)
    And in doing so we will in fact weaken our genes because as well as all genetic conditions being 'bred' out, so will other beneficial genes.
    Yeah, that's my understanding of genetics too. Isn't the gene that makes Sickle Cell Anaemia(?) a possibility also the one that makes a lot of Africans immune to Malaria? You don't get anything for nothing, it seems.

    I don't think the world presently knows enough about genetics at the moment. It'd be dabbling to just "remove" genes that seem to have a negative side effect, and that act would have likely negative side effects of its own, that we cannot predict.

    Even if our scientists did know what they were doing, if the "removal" of genes from our genepool involves things as disgusting as forced sterilisation, I have absolutely no interest. I think Eugenics only caught off because of the Great Depression. It really was too expensive to keep disabled people alive then.

    Zooropa hasn't answered my earlier question about how he can justify calling himself a libertarian still, if he doesn't believe in individual rights.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: November 23, 2005
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.