Three parent babies this is insane

blueberries

Wed, Feb 04 2015, 6:50 am

Britain on Tuesday became the first country in the world to allow the creation of babies with DNA from three people after MPs voted for the controversial procedure.

Lawmakers at the House Commons voted by 382 to 128 in favour of allowing the creation of in-vitro fertilisation (IVF) babies with DNA from three people, a move aimed at preventing serious inherited diseases being passed on from mother to child.

Under the change to the laws on IVF, as well as receiving the usual "nuclear" DNA from its mother and father, the embryo would also include a small amount of healthy so-called mDNA from a woman donor.

"Families who know what it is like to care for a child with a devastating disease are best placed to decide whether mitochondrial donation is the right option for them," said Jeremy Farrar, director of health charity Wellcome Trust.

"We welcome this vote to give them that choice."

The bill is expected to be rubber-stamped by the House of Lords, the upper chamber of parliament, later this month, paving way for the procedure to begin next year.

The change could apply to up to 2,500 women of reproductive age in Britain with hereditary mitochondrial diseases but opponents say it opens the way to the possibility of "designer babies" in future.

Mitochondrial DNA (mDNA) is passed through the mother and mitochondrial diseases cause symptoms ranging from poor vision to diabetes and muscle wasting.

Mitochondria are structures in cells which generate the energy that allows the human body to function.

Health officials estimate around 125 babies are born with the mutations in Britain every year.

- 'Invaluable choice' -

The law will allow Britain's Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority to authorise the procedure and a pioneering research centre in Newcastle is expected to be the first where it would take place.

Genetic disease charities celebrated the historic vote.

"We have finally reached a milestone in giving women an invaluable choice, the choice to become a mother without fear of passing on a lifetime under the shadow of mitochondrial disease to their child," said Robert Meadowcroft, Chief Executive of the Muscular Dystrophy Campaign.

John Tooke, President of the Academy of Medical Sciences, said he was "delighted" by the vote.

"These treatments could reduce the number of children born with rare mitochondrial diseases, and help dozens of families to lead happy and healthy lives.

"Today's vote is the culmination of many years of scientific and public debate."

- 'Destructive manipulation' -

But many Britons are still against the proposed change despite years of consultation by health authorities with the public and the scientific community.

A poll by the ComRes market research agency in the run-up to the vote showed only 20 percent of respondents in favour of the change and 41 percent against, while 39 percent said they had no view either way or did not know.

Opponents include scientists and religious leaders.

David King, director of the watchdog group Human Genetics Alert, said: "If we want to avoid the nightmare designer baby future we must draw the line here."

Josephine Quintavalle from the pro-life organisation Comment on Reproductive Ethics said there should be more focus on finding cures "which do not rely on destructive manipulation of early human life".

The Roman Catholic Church is firmly opposed to the move, pointing out that it would involve the destruction of human embryos as part of the process.

The Church of England has also said that ethical concerns "have not been sufficiently explored".

There is also concern on purely scientific grounds.

Justin St John from the Centre for Genetic Diseases at Monash University in Australia said the new IVF techniques required "further validation".

"It is essential to analyse offspring to determine that no abnormalities appear at least during early life," he said in a statement last week.

http://news.yahoo.com/british-......html

iluvjerusalem

Wed, Feb 04 2015, 6:56 am

Have any rabbeim commented on it? Sounds really incredible on the surface if it can really ensure healthy babies. I wonder what they mean by the "destruction of human embryos".

Rubber Ducky

Wed, Feb 04 2015, 7:05 am

Fascinating. Does anyone know of any responsa on this? I'd love to know what the halacha is here. Is there a halachik difference between the 3-parent baby and IVF with PGD (which I'm pretty sure is allowed by most poskim)? Note that the procedure in question replaces mitochondrial material, not chromosomes, and the aim is to prevent a debilitaing or fatal disease rather than to produce a "designer baby."

edited to correct typo

Sherri

Wed, Feb 04 2015, 7:48 am

What is the similarity between this procedure and PGD in terms of three people contributing to the embryo? Or are you not referring to the three people issue?

Mrs Bissli

Wed, Feb 04 2015, 8:10 am

To be honest, I don't see much difference between this and organ transplant, IVF or gene therapy.
Can OP please elaborate which part is insane?

For those who are not aware, Lord Winston who is a highly respected medical science professor
and government advisor on many bioethical issues, and an Orthodox Jew, had commented
already supports this.

Rubber Ducky

Wed, Feb 04 2015, 8:12 am

Sherri wrote:

What is the similarity between this procedure and PGD in terms of three people contributing to the embryo? Or are you not referring to the three people issue?

I'm trying to understand where the limits are halachically. Right, PGD involves just the 2 parents. But both involve fertilization outside the mother's body and both involve selection. It seems to me a short step from PGD to the the technique in the article, and also to the new gene editing technology CRISPR — see link http://io9.com/researchers-hav.....28550 .

Rubber Ducky

Wed, Feb 04 2015, 8:22 am

Mrs Bissli wrote:

Link to Lord Winston's comments: http://www.irishexaminer.com/e......html

Clarissa

Wed, Feb 04 2015, 8:30 am

From what I’ve heard about it, it’s a wonderful breakthrough for those who are carriers of genetic disorders.

Jewishmom8

Wed, Feb 04 2015, 8:50 am

Clarissa wrote:

From what I’ve heard about it, it’s a wonderful breakthrough for those who are carriers of genetic disorders.

yeah thats what I heard also

sky

Wed, Feb 04 2015, 8:54 am

Clarissa wrote:

From what I’ve heard about it, it’s a wonderful breakthrough for those who are carriers of genetic disorders.

that is what I thought also. Would probably create all sorts of questions about kohein status and others.

[From the title it sounded like one of those articles I read on Yahoo where a family consists of one mother, two fathers, and a son all living under one roof. The Parents have issues that only one father can be recognized as the father which can create problems with picking up child from school or doctor confidentiality. They would like a 3 parent family unit to be accepted as well]

water_bear88

Wed, Feb 04 2015, 11:42 am

sky wrote:

Why would it create issues with kohein status? I assume the donor mitochondria would be from another woman, but maybe I'm wrong on that.

southernbubby

Wed, Feb 04 2015, 12:25 pm

How would this differ halachically from a baby that was gestated by a non-biological surrogate mother or for that matter, a donor egg + the husband's sperm in the mother who will gestate and raise the child? Or what would be the difference between that and a fetus who got stem cell therapy while still in utero from an aborted fetus?

Frumdoc

Wed, Feb 04 2015, 1:00 pm

It is simply (well, very cleverly and unbelievably advanced cutting edge medicine) to enable those with mitochondrial inherited diseases to have healthy children.

Nothing to do with designer babies, mitochondria do not carry phenotypically relevant dna (that which codes for how you look or other visibly inherited characteristics), just the specific dna which codes for how mitochondria work, which is necessary for cell function and if it is abnormal, causes the horrible diseases that cause profound disability and death in early childhood.

I don't know why this is any different from a transplant, or stem cell therapy, or a bone marrow transplant, or indeed IVF with selection of gametes.

imasoftov

Wed, Feb 04 2015, 2:23 pm

Mrs Bissli wrote:

Can OP please elaborate which part is insane?

Quoted because "like" would not suffice.

greenfire

Wed, Feb 04 2015, 2:42 pm

sounds more miraculous than insane ...

Sherri

Wed, Feb 04 2015, 2:51 pm

I think OP was using it as slang for "like, this is amaaaazing" and not as in "mentally disordered". Which shouldn't be done- hurtful to those with mental health issues/disorders to see those words (and others in our lexicon) be used that way.

seeker

Wed, Feb 04 2015, 5:22 pm

Wow!

FranticFrummie

Wed, Feb 04 2015, 5:27 pm

I think it's wonderful!

seeker

Wed, Feb 04 2015, 5:34 pm

Sherri wrote:

I'm also pretty sure that's what was meant but it was a poor choice...

joy613

Wed, Feb 04 2015, 5:52 pm

Sherri wrote:

THat's what I thought too. Like when people say "That party was insane!". Meaning it was just so unreal and amazing.