Baby born without cancer gene...

[SoulKiss]

Originally Posted by the_lone_wolf

argumental error highlighted for emphasis

they're not...

the article said women with this gene are x% more likely to develop breast cancer, there is not one cause, and refusing medical treatment based on that assumption would only cause mortality rates to skyrocket

I was trying to be general in talking about this and other future treatments.

There is, I guess, still no way of saying that she wont develop the cancer ANYWAYS, all they did was reduce the odds.

Originally Posted by keithd

of course this is a good thing, yes? playing at god a little of course but this little girl can grow up free in the knowledge she'll never develop breast cancer....

or is there a whole can of them there worms being opened up here?

hmmm... something doesnt sit right with me on this issue....

It's just hyped up media-coverage.

They get a big pot of eggs, and look at which ones are vulnerable to medical ailments, and then chuck them in the bin. It's been happening (with other conditions) for years, and I see only positives coming out of it.

I do however object to girls turning in to baby making machines at 14, and continuing to sprout ugly kids all their life in return for a house. That neglect (remember Shannon Matthews?), is disgusting.

Its not that shes had anything removed or put in, its not like playing god. all that has been done is she has been screened for part of a gene which has the potential to increase the risk of breast cancer. babies are checked for many problems before they are born already. When babies have scans they can see if it has certain problems, this is the same, except done using a different method than ultrasound.

Its not altering anyone, just giving a heads up if somethings wrong.

Originally Posted by Dappa D

i
if / when i have another..if its shown that the child could be at risk, and medical science could eliminate that risk..i would take it

Ouch! That's got to hurt!

[the_lone_wolf]

Originally Posted by SoulKiss

I was trying to be general in talking about this and other future treatments.

There is, I guess, still no way of saying that she wont develop the cancer ANYWAYS, all they did was reduce the odds.

i agree with you in theory, if an illness is transmitted via hereditary means and you simply allowed sufferes to perish it would die off quickly, but there are very few diseases like that (probably because they would have already died off before the advent of modern medicine, quod erat demonstrandum)

yes, cancer is a statistic disease, but as my mum, who has had two operations, a mastectomy, has just finished 9 doses of chemotherapy, is about to start 5 weeks of going to a hospital 90mins travel away every day for radiotherapy and is also about to start a year long course of herceptin knows, a reduced chance is better than nothing at all...

Originally Posted by the_lone_wolf

a reduced chance is better than nothing at all...

Unfortunately the science behind the article does not give a reduced chance to those with the faulty gene, its intended to give no chance as its to determine whether to possibly terminate the embryo or not.

I think anything that starts prolonging life is a step too far. by this i mean creating something that will make people easily live 100+years old.
But to be able to prevent cancer is an amazing breakthrough, an not an unethical one in my opinion. Breast cancer, and other cancers for that matter, can make people prematurely die. If you can prevent the risk of cancer, then it is not unethical because it only ensures the person reaches a normal lifespan.

I wouldnt say it's any more "playing god" than giving vaccinations for other life threatening illnesses such as TB, tetanus, meninjitis and even the flu for the elderly. If these illnesses were not treated then many people would die prematurely. It is no different from preventing a cancerous gene.

[the_lone_wolf]

Originally Posted by jamesrichardson

Unfortunately the science behind the article does not give a reduced chance to those with the faulty gene, its intended to give no chance as its to determine whether to possibly terminate the embryo or not.

it gives a zero chance of breast cancer caused by faulty genes, but:

Faulty genes are responsible for between 5% and 10% of the 44,000 cases of breast cancer that occur in the UK each year

therefore the chance of developing breast cancer is reduced overall, but is not zero, that's what i meant be "reduced chance is better than nothing at all"

Originally Posted by gettin2dizzy

Ouch! That's got to hurt!

nah, flew out!

Originally Posted by Dappa D

nah, flew out!

Wouldn't fancy it myself... not having a womb and all