How is this a conundrum? If you have a debilitating genetic disease, why would you have kids and risk dooming them to the same poor quality of life you suffer from? Choosing the treatment seems like a no-brainer.
Health - Resources and discussion for everything health-related
Health: physical and mental, individual and public.
Discussions, issues, resources, news, everything.
See the pinned post for a long list of other communities dedicated to health or specific diagnoses. The list is continuously updated.
Nothing here shall be taken as medical or any other kind of professional advice.
Commercial advertising is considered spam and not allowed. If you're not sure, contact mods to ask beforehand.
Linked videos without original description context by OP to initiate healthy, constructive discussions will be removed.
Regular rules of lemmy.world apply. Be civil.
While true, it might be seen as eugenics due to the group of people that is mostly struggling with sickle cell anemia.
It is perfectly valid to wait for treatment that won't cause that complication. Once that treatment exists it is also fair to assume the children, if affected, would receive the same care.
If it wasn’t for the chemotherapy, the reproductive organs would be similarly updated to the new code.
The only way this comes even close to being eugenics-like is due to the chemotherapy requirement. And since it is (currently) a medical requirement for treatment success, with no intentional sterilization intent behind it at all (it’s just an unfortunate side effect), this does not trip the threshold for eugenics whatsoever.
Future treatments could possibly achieve the same effect without sterilization.
-
it seems like sickle cell anemia will be quite curable soon
-
you need two broken copies of the gene to get the disease, so as long as you know the partner doesn't have a copy, the kids will be fine. even if your partner has one copy, you can use IVF to make sure the kids only end up with one copy.
-
the kids can then use IVF to have 100% healthy kids themselves
IVF is not a miracle solution. It comes with its own risks and is very expensive.
That's a fairly cold and callous question. People aren't logical creatures, and 19 is really young to be making that sort of decision. Sickle cell is survivable, not to mention recessive, and many people dream of having children well before they can or should.
Why would we not make egg extraction and cryopreservation part of the treatment protocol for these patients?
Edit: I see there's a center down in Atlanta that does this. This should be the standard of care. Anything less is inhumane
Egg extraction isn't a simple procedure. The woman's body has to be convinced with high doses of hormones to release not just a single egg, but many at a time. Depending on the severity of her condition, it might not have been an option.
You know why.
sigh
I do.
Sounds like a double win to me.
That was a difficult read mostly because it's breeder propaganda.
Dude I'm an antinatalist myself but this goes deeper than "Breeder propaganda"