There are several diseases for which mankind have not managed to discover the cure at this time. Physicians can try dealing with the symptoms, but they haven’t found a way of actually treating the source of the disease itself. But in an article I read recently, there’s a new In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) technique that could reduce the risks of some of these disorders being passed on from mother to child. But several British Parliamentarians have argued against the therapy, citing the moral implications in substituting the damaged DNA in the mitochondria.
During one of my classes, we discussed a problem that was based on the types of Muscular Dystrophy, which affects the muscles of the body and is due to certain muscle protein not produced. We learnt through our research that it was an inherited genetic disorder and once someone was born with Muscular Dystrophy there aren’t currently any real treatment options. And then I read this article, and I saw that there are advances being made to manipulate the genetic code, so that mothers wouldn’t be able to pass on diseases involving their mitochondria to their children. And it really made me feel hopeful, that they could keep on making advances, and eventually we would find a way to deal with most inherited disorders, not just ones involving mitochondria. But then I felt disappointed to read about the British MPs opposing the technique.
But the article forced me to consider both sides of the argument. And very importantly, it made me realise that with so many rapid advances being made in the dynamic world of medicine, I’ll have to make decisions and consider these moral implications at some point in the future
A neighbour of mine, who is the same age as one of my aunts, suffers from Muscular Dystrophy and it is rather poignant to compare her vibrancy with the wheelchair bound individual I glimpsed through our fence since childhood. I know he will gradually, inexorably deteriorate until he is no more. I also had some experience with another genetic disorder- sickle cell anaemia.
When I was in 2nd form, my Math Teacher’s three-year-old daughter died of complications due to sickle cell anaemia. There’s no cure for sickle cell anaemia, it’s a genetic disorder and the faulty gene is passed on. I saw how devastated my teacher was, and who could blame her – she’d just lost her little girl after months of desperately trying to find ways for her to have the best shot at a normal life. But if a baby is born with sickle cell anaemia, there’s not much that can be done in the way of treatment. But what if they were able to do something in vitro? What if the disease could have been prevented? We’re a way off from coming up with a way to manipulate the genetic code to prevent sickle cell anaemia.
But we’re just making things even more difficult if politicians intervene by playing to public sentiments without considering the underlying science. Essentially advances in science in and of themselves are not “bad” or “good” – it’s to what use they’re put. In the case of MD, the science does not alter any aspect of the patient’s humanity – that which make them human – but simply allowed to live a fuller human life. The solution is to impose controls over the use of the scientific advance to ensure it is not abused.
I would like to hope that as a doctor I would make the choices that would give my patient the best possible quality of life. I’d like to be the type of doctor that takes the time to educate my patients about the dangers of smoking and alcohol abuse, so that I can prevent lung cancer and liver cirrhosis instead of having to treat them. And if there’s a chance to prevent a child from being born with an untreatable disease, I’d like to take it.
