Are we taking healthcare too far (ethics)

[Doc.]

are you suggesting that it should be ethical to act like those ants?

 

[Giliell]

Firstly, how many genes have 0% survivability? Perhaps some birth defects do but not the stuff we inoculate ourselves from... and this only matters if these were the result of actual genetic traits rather than, for example, environmental factors...

I'll give you some examples
- There seem to be a lot of open heart surgery on very young kids that won't be able to grow up to adulthood without it.
- If a newborn kid has kidney failure, it gets treated his whole life and put on a transplant list.
- Kids with leukemia get radiated and treated all their life (this goes for every cancer)

Now the problem your theory has here is that those things are mostly not caused by genes. "wiping them out genetically" (which could also mean sterelizing them) wouldn't improve the gene-pool, it might actually make it worse, since those kids could have a positive mutation. Also, as a species, our evolution found it favourable to care for those with medical problems because they would still play a positive role for the species as a whole. Even if they don't have any kids themselves, they can help with raising the rest of the tribe. That's also one of the evolutionary explenations for homosexuality.

- If a kid is diagnosed with diabetes (type I), it get's saved by insuline, treated his whole life.

- hemophilia B

Which are genetic diseases, granted.
But as we're advancing, there might also be a genetic treatment.
Or those people abstain from passing on their genes because they don't want their kids to face their fate.
And example of this is Chorea Huntington. In evolutionary terms it's a non-issue, because it only has effects when the reproductive cycle is usually over, but it's a terrible fate for the individual. With modern genetic testing the kids of a Huntington patient can find out whether they have it, too and decide not to have kids or to have healthy kids via IVF.

Most kids and people who are saved by modern medicine and technology don't have bad genes.
I'll give you the example of my own kids. Both of them had terrible problems breastfeeding. Without modern aids, or a social society where possible other women would have fed them (the problem was more with my breasts than with them), they might not have survived. Yet especially the older one is very healthy and I suspect very intelligent (not just a mum's pride, two year olds aren't supposed to start reading and writing.) The little one has a birth-defect, she has only one kidney. This might be due to an anormality in my hubby's family. His gran had 4 kidneys.
Funny thing: without modern medicine it might not have been discovered at all, because she has zero problems so far. The gene might be completely neutral in evolutionary terms. But yet, when they start reproducing, technology might make sure that the defect isn't handed down to their kids and one day a child is born with a severe defect.

 

[Gunboat Diplomat]

Ants need a colony but that's okay 'cause they always stick together and can build such a structure... and impressively so. They're one of the most hardy animals on Earth!

When is the first ant-bone transplant? I allways wondered where background radiation came from, must be from their cancer-treatments? Did you ever find a hospital in an antcolony? Ants kill what doesn't benefit the colony.

Giliell has answered your post rather well so I will simply address this point.

You've failed to see the point of my example. The ant's ability to build a colony is a technology of the ants that helps them survive. Beavers building dams or birds building nests are technologies that help these animals survive. Obviously these technologies pale in comparison to the sophistication of modern medicine but they are no less necessary for their survival. In nature, survival is survival so if there's something that you have to do to survive then you do it! Our technology is part of our survival mechanism...

Incidentally, this is why our young are so amazingly helpless. Most other animals are far more capable just after birth than humans are because there has been no selective pressure for us to be competent while young (while our infant helplessness was the byproduct of some of our developmental advantages). No matter how helpless we're born and even how long we need help, our parents have always successfully raised us to sexual maturity. The result has been helpless babies... but who cares? Again, there was obviously no need for competent babies and, in nature, if it works then it works!

 

[Nogre]

Now the problem your theory has here is that those things are mostly not caused by genes. "wiping them out genetically" (which could also mean sterelizing them) wouldn't improve the gene-pool, it might actually make it worse, since those kids could have a positive mutation. Also, as a species, our evolution found it favourable to care for those with medical problems because they would still play a positive role for the species as a whole. Even if they don't have any kids themselves, they can help with raising the rest of the tribe. That's also one of the evolutionary explenations for homosexuality.

This is a very good point. If caring for the sick and handicapped is harmful in terms of survival, we wouldn't have developed the instincts to do so, so they must provide some kind of evolutionary advantage, or at least be neutral. Does this mean that we shouldn't take these things into consideration on an individual level? Not really. But it certainly means that the harm isn't obvious enough that we should create new eugenic public policy.

That said, this is something that should be investigated by scientists. I think they'll find a lot of support for Giliell's point, but that explanation isn't enough that we shouldn't take the time to make sure. But for now, I think we just need to be aware of it and let people make the decision on an individual level.

 

[Doc.]

Now the problem your theory has here is that those things are mostly not caused by genes.

i don't know, maybe it's not a definite gene abnormality that causes them but vulnerability towards diseases are caused by the DNA, what else can it be. DNA is not just bunch of isolated genes, it's a system of genes which interact with each-other in a most complex way.

for example smoking may hurt me much more than it can hurt you, those are mostly genes.

 

[Gunboat Diplomat]

i don't know, maybe it's not a definite gene abnormality that causes them but vulnerability towards diseases are caused by the DNA, what else can it be. DNA is not just bunch of isolated genes, it's a system of genes which interact with each-other in a most complex way.

I'm not sure if there's a bridge of understanding here. It kind of looks like you said that it may not be genetic but they are genetic because "what else can it be?"

There has to be a gene that can be selected for if we're talking about biological evolution by natural selection. If you got a birth defect from a smoking or drinking mother, say, then this isn't genetic and can't be passed on unless maybe susceptibility to smoking or drinking is genetic... but then you'd have to establish this. That too can be environmental (in this case, social)...

 

[Doc.]

what i meant was that it doesn't have to be a single gene abnormality but rather a result of interaction of different healthy genes.

There has to be a gene that can be selected for if we're talking about biological evolution by natural selection. If you got a birth defect from a smoking or drinking mother, say, then this isn't genetic and can't be passed on unless maybe susceptibility to smoking or drinking is genetic... but then you'd have to establish this. That too can be environmental (in this case, social)...

Smoking and drinking can cause genetic disorders which means that they will be passed on the next generation, but it also may be none-genetic, for example if smoking or drinking mother can't supply child with enough nutrients, plus alcohol penetrates the placenta, and the enzyme-alcohol dehydrogenase is not present in fetus, in which case child will have abnormalities but his genes will be normal, it depends and what stage of embryo development alcohol will affect it.

http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=99614

[edited]

 

[derkvanl]

Now the problem your theory has here is that those things are mostly not caused by genes. "wiping them out genetically" (which could also mean sterelizing them) wouldn't improve the gene-pool, it might actually make it worse, since those kids could have a positive mutation.

I can see what you mean by this, a greater gene-pool should mean a better chance of survival when things change.

Which are genetic diseases, granted.
But as we're advancing, there might also be a genetic treatment.
Or those people abstain from passing on their genes because they don't want their kids to face their fate.
And example of this is Chorea Huntington. In evolutionary terms it's a non-issue, because it only has effects when the reproductive cycle is usually over, but it's a terrible fate for the individual. With modern genetic testing the kids of a Huntington patient can find out whether they have it, too and decide not to have kids or to have healthy kids via IVF.

This is the point what I think should be discussed. 1st term thinking is treatment, or using something artificial, without thinking of longterm consequences. Even going as far as changing our own evolved genes, or depending on IVF to get a healthy kid.

We are using techniques that can (theoretically) have really long term consequences on our common health and we are working it like a one way track. Cure it all. Use everything we can. If it won't go the natural way, we'll make sure we can do it. We don't know where that finishline is going to be, but we won't stop.

 

[Ozymandyus]

Smoking and drinking can cause genetic disorders which means that they will be passed on the next generation, but it also may be none-genetic, for example if smoking or drinking mother can't supply child with enough nutrients, plus alcohol penetrates the placenta, and the enzyme-alcohol dehydrogenase is not present in fetus, in which case child will have abnormalities but his genes will be normal, it depends and what stage of embryo development alcohol will affect it.

http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=99614

[edited]

Sorry man, you really didn't understand this article. This article was saying that the extent of damage caused by alcohol and smoking while pregnant can differ based on genetics, but that does NOT mean the disorders that were caused by the smoking and drinking will be passed on - such a person could still have a healthy baby as long as those babies are not exposed to smoking and alcohol as a fetus. The likelihood of smoking and drinking affecting the germline cells is very small, no matter how many of these theorized genetic factors that can result in an increase in the likelihood of birth defects when exposed to alcohol are present.

Now, they will pass on the likelihood of getting birth defects when their mother drinks during pregnancy, but we have no way of knowing whether that predisposition also carries benefits with it. It's hardly the sort of thing that we should consider a genetic disorder - just don't drink while you are pregnant - problem fixed.

 

[borrofburi]

This is a very good point. If caring for the sick and handicapped is harmful in terms of survival, we wouldn't have developed the instincts to do so, so they must provide some kind of evolutionary advantage, or at least be neutral. Does this mean that we shouldn't take these things into consideration on an individual level? Not really. But it certainly means that the harm isn't obvious enough that we should create new eugenic public policy.

We've never wielded this level of power before. It's kind of like saying "well we naturally pollute and kill things, and we wouldn't have developed the instincts to do so if it wasn't some form of evolutionary advantage, therefore there should be no restrictions on any hunting or polluting"... Yes, hunting in the past had some great evolutionary advantages, but we've also never had this ability to hunt before and simply eradicate a species. Yes, caring for the sick in the past had some great evolutionary advantages, but we've also never had this ability to keep people alive and reproducing.

 

[Doc.]

Smoking and drinking can cause genetic disorders which means that they will be passed on the next generation, but it also may be none-genetic, for example if smoking or drinking mother can't supply child with enough nutrients, plus alcohol penetrates the placenta, and the enzyme-alcohol dehydrogenase is not present in fetus, in which case child will have abnormalities but his genes will be normal, it depends and what stage of embryo development alcohol will affect it.

http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=99614

[edited]

Sorry man, you really didn't understand this article. This article was saying that the extent of damage caused by alcohol and smoking while pregnant can differ based on genetics, but that does NOT mean the disorders that were caused by the smoking and drinking will be passed on - such a person could still have a healthy baby as long as those babies are not exposed to smoking and alcohol as a fetus. The likelihood of smoking and drinking affecting the germline cells is very small, no matter how many of these theorized genetic factors that can result in an increase in the likelihood of birth defects when exposed to alcohol are present.

Now, they will pass on the likelihood of getting birth defects when their mother drinks during pregnancy, but we have no way of knowing whether that predisposition also carries benefits with it. It's hardly the sort of thing that we should consider a genetic disorder - just don't drink while you are pregnant - problem fixed.

i wasn't relying on that article either way, frankly, i hardly read it.

i'll answer tomorrow it's getting really late.

 

[Gunboat Diplomat]

i wasn't relying on that article either way, frankly, i hardly read it.

You linked to an article without bothering to ensure that it supported your point? Really?

 

[Doc.]

i wasn't relying on that article either way, frankly, i hardly read it.

You linked to an article without bothering to ensure that it supported your point? Really?

If not Ozymanyius you wouldn't get it either way (kidding ). I actually skimmed through it quickly, plus it was late.

so, drinking and also smoking causes changes in gene expression, that's why i basically called it genetic disorder. I've heard an opinion that it may be passed, but I admit I'm not sure, however it's estimated that about half of these children who suffered start drinking themselves when they grow up.

went off the topic, sorry.

 

[Giliell]

so, drinking and also smoking causes changes in gene expression, that's why i basically called it genetic disorder. I've heard an opinion that it may be passed, but I admit I'm not sure, however it's estimated that about half of these children who suffered start drinking themselves when they grow up.

went off the topic, sorry.

But that still doesn't argue the point. These kids don't need healthcare for survival, but education and special needs services to make them productive members of our society.

 

[Ozymandyus]

One thing that is particularly interesting here is that even IF we say we are getting more unhealthy as a species, letting more harmful mutations be passed on to the next generation, we are not recognizing the immense good that can come from those mutations. Much of our understanding of how human development works comes from malfunctioning cases, whether it be traumatic brain injuries telling us how the brain works, or genetic diseases telling us about how a particular protein works.

The very same people you might let die off 'the natural way' could end up telling us things about how we develop that could bring great advances in how we understand the human body! Saving them is a win win!

 

[Jotto999]

If not for modern intervention, people like Stephen Hawking would have never have been able to do what they did. There are many people that were able to contribute invaluable things to our species, because of modern intervention. Many geniuses starting out have been thought of as dysfunctional or burdensome on society but later in life showed they have a brilliant talent that would prove invaluable for humanity. Plus, there is what Ozymandyus said.

If not for our catering to support "weak genes", disadvantaged individuals and many who were thought a burden on society, we would throw away so much. Far more than whatever could be arguably gained from "genetic cleansing", IMO.

So if you're looking at this as a 'individual rights' vs 'society as a whole' thing, bear in mind that the proposed genetic cleansing would not necessarily have been better for society as a whole anyways, in fact I am quite convinced it would have overall very destructive, in addition to the individual rights dilemma.

I think letting certain people die just because they are susceptible to illness X to be extremely primitive and morally outrageous, not to mention highly counterproductive, contrary to the benefits that proponents would try to argue.

 

[irmerk]

I tend to think of it as being bad in respect to natural selection, yet good for us. Who is to say natural selection is the end-all, be-all? It's just another stage of progression (Not to imply there is an objective progress, but I suck with vocabulary). Some life form comes along and adds complexity and mixes it up. There doesn't seem to me to be a reason to stay along the lines of natural selection.

Unless I'm wrong?

 

[obsidianavenger]

I tend to think of it as being bad in respect to natural selection, yet good for us. Who is to say natural selection is the end-all, be-all? It's just another stage of progression (Not to imply there is an objective progress, but I suck with vocabulary). Some life form comes along and adds complexity and mixes it up. There doesn't seem to me to be a reason to stay along the lines of natural selection.

Unless I'm wrong?

this is a good point. natural selection is blind to everything except genes and how well they pass themselves along. but there is a lot more to being human, and being alive. stuff that *we* pay attention to that natural selection is incapable of taking into account.

honestly.... given two senarios i would rather the human race die out sooner with most members living happy fulfilled lives than us going on for a long time under a genetic dictatorship of some kind...