I am asking this question to myself in particular and to everyone in general.
Is it worth finding cures for rare genetic diseases which affect just 100s or 1000s out of the 7 billion of the worlds population?
In nature, say in a population of wild bison, such rare genetic disorders would just manifest themselves and soon the individual will die, if the disease is terminal that is. Or else it will just maintain the low gene frequency. Not altering the robustness of the gene pool in general.
But what about Humans?
Finding a cure to ANY disease involves millions if not billions of dollars. Pharmaceuticals do not invest in such diseases primarily cause they will never recover the cost of finding the cure due to the limited market. Such diseases rely on academic research for possible cures.
Looking at it from the larger gene pool point of view, is it beneficial to just let these individuals die before they procreate? Sooner or later the faulty gene will be extinct. And 100s of people is not a large number, after all that many have died in terrorists attacks in Mumbai alone. Many many more have died in natural disasters in the past year alone.
But what about diseases which are not terminal? They will be passed on in the children of the patients. Should the patient be responsible and not procreate by their own will?
And what about the patients themselves? They will ask me : What if you had this disease instead of me? Would you be writing this blog?
However less be their numbers, they do have a right to life. And if the bigger whole is being examined, then they are fighting for their survival just as so many others in nature do. Despite their illness. If they survive and procreate then they have won. Despite their illness. Who am I to decide whether a cure should be found or not?
This is a sensitive issue no doubt. And I don't have an answer to this question. I don't even know if I am aware of all the factors which affect this issue. And I am the least qualified person to declare what should and should not be done.
All I can ask of you is to give this question some thought.
2 comments:
Boy am i glad you got around to saying its a basic right to live. :) There are several ways to look at this, i'd like to examine 2.
One- The way nature intended it... or so to speak. We don't find animals searching for cures, spending billions of ??grass?? to find some cure to a terminal illness. You get the disease, you most likely die. That doesn't seem like too much of a problem does it? Merely survival to procreate will be satisfied to keep the species going. But this perspective is grossly ignorant of the fact that humans have (today) the need to be emotionally stable for well being, whats more, we can do something to keep it that way.
Two- (restricting this to humans on purpose) Everyone has the right to life(like you said). And as social animals, its ones job to participate in keeping the other ill-free. Its a responsibility for which you get something in return. With which he survives.
Look at it anyway you like, its a preservation of self at the bottom line. Also, just something else to think about this quote- http://www.gurteen.com/gurteen/gurteen.nsf/id/X0022B066/
the last part is - to know that even one life has breathed easier because you have lived.... this is to have succeeded. "
I guess thats what we see it as. :)
Nice to see you writing again.
Hey Sid, nice blog!
One thing... there's nothing as 'faulty gene'.... its all relative. A gene not very useful in one context, may be life-saver for something else, in some other context... most common example being Sickle-cell anemia.
'Survival of the Fittest' is just a theory. 'Survival of the Sickest' is a hard fact. Check out this book: 'Survival of the Sickest' by Sharon Moalem. im sure you'll like it. To an extend may answer ur question whether it is worth the effort or not...
also, on a slightly different note, check out this video... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eScDfYzMEEw
Post a Comment