Search This Blog

Loading...

Friday, December 16, 2016

Babies Made from Two Women and One Man

Teach your children that
this is where babies come from
The article below is copied and pasted from the UK Catholic Herald

Babies made from two women and one man have been approved by the UK's fertility regulator

The creation of babies made from two women and one man has been approved by the UK’s fertility regulator, prompting condemnation from pro-life campaign groups.

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority announced its endorsement of the new procedure yesterday. It is supposed to prevent babies being born with genetic disorders such as mitochondrial diseases.

The genetic diseases are inherited from the mother only, so the new technique uses a donor egg as well as the mother’s egg and father’s sperm in order to ensure the disease is not passed on to the baby.

The first such child could be born, at the earliest, by the end of 2017.
Bioethicist Dr Anthony McCarthy, of SPUC, said the decision was reckless and would do nothing to help those who are already suffering with the disease. He said: “It comes as little surprise that the HFEA has approved the creation of ‘three-parent’ embryos given their track record of undermining respect for the human embryo and the integrity of human reproduction. The two techniques which the HFEA has decided to permit are not curative of mitochondrial diseases and in no way help those who already have them.

“One technique, Pronuclear Transfer, destroys two human embryos by removing the nuclear material from an embryo with faulty mitochondria, whose life is ended, and creating a new embryo by placing this nuclear material into the shell of a second embryo who is also destroyed,” Dr McCarthy continued. “The fact that there are now calls in Newcastle for egg donors – in practice, to produce healthy embryos solely for spare parts – tells us much about attitudes to women used to produce embryos this way, and harms and endangers us all.”

“The other technique, Maternal Spindle Transfer, uses a donor egg which is enucleated and then given the nucleus from the egg of the woman with the mitochondrial condition, such that when the egg is fertilised an embryo is formed, it is hoped free from disease (this embryo has ‘three parents’ as the donor egg is from a mother who makes a genetic contribution to the embryo). “While no embryos need be destroyed in the technique itself, the new life has come to be through a production process which fragments maternity and will in practice be subject to quality-control.”

Dr McCarthy concluded: “Finally, it is worth noting that there are very serious safety concerns about these techniques, which may well pass on new genetic problems to future generations. Such concerns have been raised many times by authoritative voices in the scientific community and elsewhere. The HFEA, as well as undermining respect for human life and reproduction, continues to show a reckless attitude to the safety of the society it is supposed to serve.”

Life Spokesman Mark Bhagwandin said there was still danger and uncertainty surrounding the treatment. He said: “Despite the thousands of people who have written to the HFEA and sounded alarm bells, it has decided to approve a procedure which will alter the human genome. The HFEA says it is a cautious decision. However this genetic modification of human beings, is very uncertain and potentially dangerous. There is nothing cautious about the HFEA ruling.

“It is at the very least reckless and irresponsible given that we have absolutely no idea what the long term consequences are to us interfering with the human genome. Just a few months ago one study on mice showed that this therapy could influence metabolism and ageing.

“It has also already been acknowledged by scientists that there is a risk of the original“defective mitochondria” still entering the modified embryo. The therapy, only trialled in animals so far, could therefore fail. Whilst we are deeply sympathetic to the plight of people with mitochondrial related diseases, the ends does not always justify the means. We would encourage and support greater investigation and research into ethical remedies which do not seek to genetically modify human beings.”


1 comment:

Mary Ann Kreitzer said...

The "brave new world," which has been here for awhile, just got a lot crazier. Chimeras next?