26 replies to this topic

[Noupoi]

As for the wording of the orginal question, it is quite vauge. Taken at face value, you are suggesting that we simply deny those with disabilites access to healthcare and treatment which may improve their quaility of life. In this case, I think the answer for the vast majority of people is no, and that we should do what we can to help those worse off than us.

If what you are referring to is genetic disorders and whether we should allow those to be passed on, this is a much more contraversial issue. Not only due to the different people affected. Take Huntington's disease for example. It only tends to start emerging around mid-age, at which point the quality of life of affected person declines.

The question emerges if the value of life and the experiences that a child may and the happiness it brings they may bring to not only the immediate family of the child and the people in their life is outweighed

This is only complicated by the fact that HD is caused by a recessive gene, which means that there is the chance of the offspring of the person affected by the disease may or may not have the disease at all. At this point, it becomes a question of whether we should deny someone the happiness of bringing up children due to the simple possibility of creating more stuffering in the future.

I personally believe that it is wrong for a single person to decide what is best for everyone. We should offer to do what we can to help those who suffer from diseases, and allow people to make the decision themselves on what is best for them.

[MAlandM]

@Glorimbex I in NO way said that I want to replicate the Eugenics experiment nor did I say I supported their idea, or anything along those lines.

@Noupoi I purposely made the question vague, so that all the different branches of the question could be explored. I just wanted to hear everyone's opinions, and how they interpreted the question. I have to say though, Noupoi, your argument was most persuasive. And I was referring to genetic disorders by "inherited disabilities" and "inherited diseases". What else could I have meant? (that was a joke, not a mock)

[Conda]

By treating the disabled, we are helping them survive and reproduce, which may result in them passing on their disability to their children. The way natural selection works is that only the fittest survive, so the disabled will (and I'm sorry to say this) struggle to survive and/or will die. Then, the percentage with an inherited disability will begin to decrease until there are no longer any humans remaining alive with an inherited disability (theoretically). Are we doing wrong to the future generations who may suffer from these inherited disabilities by allowing them to be passed down the family trees? Are we being amoral and not considering the bigger picture?

I my view this comes down to how you see the human race and how you view the purpose of life. For me life is precious and a gift, for example I couldn't bring myself to take someone else's life unless under extreme circumstances and I was literately left with no other choice. If you see the sole purpose of life as being the contest to survive and to ensure that our species lasts for as long as possible then I guess I could maybe see why someone would try to fight this argument. As you can probably tell I am the opposite, I believe everyone has the right to live their life as they see fit (straight, gay, cross dressing etc) unless they become a danger to society and their choices lead them to give up this freedom (jail for example) but that is another topic all together.

If this was to become a practice where would it stop? Who would define which diseases or disabilities should be part of this practice? As we gain better knowledge of the human genome we discover some very interesting things, for example, it is possible for some diseases or disabilities to lye dormant within a 'carrier' and when they reproduce with another who just happens to be a 'carrier' themselves then the disease is unfortunately passed down to the next generation. Would this be taken into account? Would every person need to be 'checked' and mapped for possible genes that carry a disease? Putting aside the fact that in a world with these practices 'carriers' may also be 'cleansed', in the best case scenario would you then have to find a mate who would not result in any of your carrier genes being 'activated' in your offspring?

Aside from all this I believe this sort of practice would ultimately be detrimental to the species. Steven Hawking is seen by many as one of the brightest minds of this generation, his studies and theories could help to one day lead our species to a better understanding of our universe (I guess he has already done this part) and possibly even travel to other planets or even other solar systems. This could lead to our species to colonise other planets and because of this possibly avoid extinction from a global catastrophe. Of course under this system he would unfortunately already be dead and this could happen to any visionary or genius who had a slight abnormality.

As our technology improves who knows where it will lead us? Lets not forget how fast technology is advancing, many of the diseases and disabilities we have today could be treatable or even eradicated in the next few decades. As far as we know we are the first species on this planet who can actually intervene in nature and determine their fate though means of technology and for me, treating and trying to cure / prevent disease or disabilities is something I would rather see than simply leaving these people to die because of something they neither asked for nor could they prevent.

Edited by Demise, 03 July 2012 - 08:47 pm.

[Glorimbex]

As for the wording of the orginal question, it is quite vauge. Taken at face value, you are suggesting that we simply deny those with disabilites access to healthcare and treatment which may improve their quaility of life. In this case, I think the answer for the vast majority of people is no, and that we should do what we can to help those worse off than us.

If what you are referring to is genetic disorders and whether we should allow those to be passed on, this is a much more contraversial issue. Not only due to the different people affected. Take Huntington's disease for example. It only tends to start emerging around mid-age, at which point the quality of life of affected person declines.

The question emerges if the value of life and the experiences that a child may and the happiness it brings they may bring to not only the immediate family of the child and the people in their life is outweighed

This is only complicated by the fact that HD is caused by a recessive gene, which means that there is the chance of the offspring of the person affected by the disease may or may not have the disease at all. At this point, it becomes a question of whether we should deny someone the happiness of bringing up children due to the simple possibility of creating more stuffering in the future.

I personally believe that it is wrong for a single person to decide what is best for everyone. We should offer to do what we can to help those who suffer from diseases, and allow people to make the decision themselves on what is best for them.

I think picking on one disease isn't fruitful. Surely any disease or disability shouldn't preclude a person from treatment and understanding and respect.

As I said in my last post, eugenics is the start of a horror that I can't even begin to accept.

[Noupoi]

I think picking on one disease isn't fruitful. Surely any disease or disability shouldn't preclude a person from treatment and understanding and respect.

I gave the example of Huntingtions to illustrate how you shouldn't make the decision of parenthood for people, but rather allow them the choice to do what is best for themselves, not to say that HD is the only disease that matters.

[Glorimbex]

I know. My reply was worded badly. Sorry.

[Ancient]

And now the main topic:
"Is it wrong to treat a person with any form of inherited disability?"

Yes, if you feel that way.
No, if you don't.

I'm all for natural selection, so long as no-one is excluded from the consequences. - Never going to happen unless mother nature decides enough is enough for us humans (or something from space decides for us).

[Kipperfiend]

Medicine, this has been overlooked in this discussion. Simply by having healthcare we've started to opt of the process and will most likely continue to do so. There's nothing natural about selection for the vast majority of the western world, If there's was we'd all most likely be dead before 40. Even talking about it given this context is simply making the term natural selection a euphemism for eugenics, quite apart from any notions of social Darwinism.

[DeanAdamFry]

So you are saying I shouldn't have kids because of the most likely chance I'll pass my mental disability on to them?

Can't believe topics like this even exist.

[Dodger]

Eugenics is wrong.

Many disabilities are not inherited but are caused by a random mutation that cannot be predicted.

Some of the genes that cause the inherited disabilities can have a positive effect for some carriers - e.g. sickle cell. So to try to do away with them before they are fully understood would be foolish.

Those people who are disabled or carriers of conditions are usually those in the best position to decide whether to pass on their genes as they will have the most personal experience of living with the condition.

Also the most important point: Being disabled does not mean that you are a failure.

[Kipperfiend]

Can't believe topics like this even exist.

I must say I was rather unsettled by it myself. I think that the ramifications of the topic may not have been fully understood by all.