Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

3 person embryos - genetic narcissism?

56 replies

Wellwell999 · 25/02/2015 00:49

Ok. So a provocative aibu. But interested in replies. I am fully supportive of advancements, stem cell research etc but am disquieted by this. I know fully how much these families want children. I get it. But why when people all over are accepting their fertility limitations and starting wonderful donor conceived, adopted , fostered , step child based families do we feel their needs to have 'genetic' offspring are so paramount and so pressing that they take precedence over long, considered, wide ranging debate which I dont believe has taken place.

OP posts:
fizzycolagurlie · 25/02/2015 01:12

I'm not sure I'm 100% comfortable with the concept of a 3 person embryo. But, I wouldn't ever consider it to be anything to do with "narcissism". Surely its about avoiding genetic disorders which are potentially life threatening. Did you know this before you started your post, or are you just swinging wide in the hope to wind people up?

WereJamming · 25/02/2015 01:19

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

caroldecker · 25/02/2015 01:23

IVF screens for disabilities anyway - this is just a way to avoid these. There is little evidence mitochondrial DNa has much influence over the child development

Arsenic · 25/02/2015 01:55

Isn't conceiving (deliberately) any baby genetic narcissism?

You want a baby and you want it to be made of you and your partner.

Not necessarily. Natural conception with genetic material from each parent is the default, after all.

CallMeExhausted · 25/02/2015 01:59

The specific purpose of a 3 person embryo is with regard to maternal mitochondrial genetic mutations - they have 100% genetic transfer, and an affected female will pass it to 100% of her offspring.

How do I know? I have a mDNA 12681 T>C translocation. I have affected all three of my children in different ways. It has been fatal in one already, a second will not see adulthood, and the third, while he should become an adult, is not unaffected by any stretch.

It was not diagnosed until my youngest was over 3 and I had already buried her older sister.

Nuclear transfer would stop the progression down my line once and for all. No more death, no more disabled children.

If that is narcissistic, then I am guilty. I elected for sterilization. The line still ends at me - as neither of my girls will see adulthood.

I assume the NHS should not fund infertility treatment either, since fostering and adoption ought to be "good enough"?

CallMeExhausted · 25/02/2015 02:01

And for the record... Y A B U

TheSmallerBadger · 25/02/2015 02:39

Hmm, I think that's an odd attitude. I don't think its any different to using donor sperm and no-one is up in arms about that.

fizzycolagurlie · 25/02/2015 04:33

TheSmallerBadger. Actually some people are up in arms about donor sperm or ivf or similar - mostly for strict religious reasons -

however · 25/02/2015 05:02

These people don't have fertility limitations. They can get pregnant, right? My understanding is that they want to eliminate the risk of their child having horrible diseases because the couple are unlucky, genetically speaking, an can't have a healthy child.

Or have I got that wrong?

toomuchtooold · 25/02/2015 05:14

What happened OP, it was midniggt, you'd a few drinks in you and you thought it would be fun to go on Mumsnet and take a pop at a group of people who get too easy a ride of it in this life... people with inherited genetic disorders. I don't know if it occured to you that Mumsnet is a big population and the people you're calling narcissistic also use this site: let me be kind and assume it didn't occur to you that people who are in the position of considering using this technology have almost always lost a child or sibling to the illness so for us it's not the diverting little armchair philosophical discussion it is for you. Further, you're not just being unkind, you're being a bit stupid. Wonderful though all those alternative methods of family making might be, they are not a simple substitute for having children from your own gametes. Adoption can be difficult and adoption agencies won't look at you if you are pursuing any sort of fertility treatment. Donor eggs are hard to get - but there's every reason to believe it will be easier to get donors for mitochondrial transfer because it is likely it will come with the option for donor anonymity unlike conventional egg donation. And finally... stepchildren? What should we do, get divorced and marry other people, with kids? Anyway good effort OP, I'm not often so effectively trolled on Mumsnet.

Ohfourfoxache · 25/02/2015 05:17

CallMeExhausted Sad I'm so, so sorry for what you've gone through Thanks

It's not narcissistic, it's preventing the suffering of another human. A much wanted, loved, cherished human - who would be all these things anyway, but with the chance of a normal, happy, healthy life.

If the technology is there and it's safe then I feel that we have a moral duty to use it.

Original poster
Wellwell999 · 25/02/2015 06:58

To all those I troubled. I apologise. The use of the word narcissism was unfortunate and I am terribly sorry for any hurt caused. I understand everyone's desire to reproduce - themselves - that's what I meant by the ill chosen n word. I am simply afraid for all of us the consequences of such an ethical shift to 3 person embryo that is a quantum leap from a 2 person embryo. But apologies to those of you again.

OP posts:
bigbluestars · 25/02/2015 07:06

wellwell- I suggest you do some homework before jumping in with both feet.

When you talk of an "ethical shift" you are having a knee jerk reaction based on a very poor understanding.

Kittymum03 · 25/02/2015 07:17

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

icelollycraving · 25/02/2015 07:20

Yabvu.

Ohfourfoxache · 25/02/2015 07:49

Yes, it is an ethical shift.

But I believe that, ethically, it is a justified shift. The consequences are nothing to be "afraid" of - it's a positive that will potentially prevent a great deal of suffering.

It is important to note that anything "new" has come with ethical questions. Look at IVF. a significant number of people would not be here were it not for a technique that was once deemed controversial at best. Look at the amount of suffering that has been prevented - childlessness can be heartbreaking.

If progress means that we can prevent suffering then there is a moral duty to pursue it where possible.

kim147 · 25/02/2015 07:55

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

bigbluestars · 25/02/2015 07:56

ohfourfoxache- I agree.

Let's remember too that IVF is a wonderful treatment not just for those with fertility problems. Thanks to early genetic testing IVF can be used in conjunction with embryo screening ( pre implantation genetic diagnosis) to completely avoid many genetic disorders like cystic fibrosis.
IVF can help create life, but also prevent a great deal of suffering due to disease.

kim147 · 25/02/2015 07:57

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

FuzzyHeaded · 25/02/2015 07:59

As PPs have already said, YABVU.

As far as I understand it, the quantity of genetic material contributed by the 'third person' is infinitesimally small compared to the quantity of genetic material contributed by the child's parents. Unless I've totally misunderstood the science it's a case of turning off often a SINGLE faulty gene. I am not (touch wood) personally affected by this but I think it is fantastic that this technology is in place to enable people to pass on all their thousands of perfectly healthy genes whilst deselecting a single harmful one.

Ohfourfoxache · 25/02/2015 08:13

Absolutely bigblue - techniques available now are utterly amazing, and so many people will now live healthier, less painful lives as a result.

It really pisses me off when people raise the whole "ethical issues" thing. Surely it is unethical to fail to prevent suffering. But there aren't the same arguments trotted out for people who need transplants, for example. There are so many arguments about what "should" be treated and how clinicians are effectively playing God - where do we draw the line? Every intervention is playing God to an extent - does that mean that we shouldn't treat anything and always let nature take its course?

PtolemysNeedle · 25/02/2015 08:16

I don't think YABU.

I admit to only knowing the basics behind the science of this, but it does make me uncomfortable. I don't think it is necessary tbh, because while I don't believe that adoption, fostering etc are automatically valid options for people who suffer with infertility, I also don't believe that infertility or knowing you cannot have healthy children due to genetics is so terrible that we have to look for any possible 'cure', unlike other conditions that desperately need more funding and research. There comes a point when medical science can take things too far, and there are no guarantees that this won't have negative consequences for the children created by it.

OTheHugeManatee · 25/02/2015 08:19

I thought the point of it was to reduce the risk of congenital diseases. What is narcissistic about that?

zazzie · 25/02/2015 08:20

We all have genes from thousands of different ancesters. I don't see what difference it makes in having a few extra different genes.

SugarplumKate · 25/02/2015 08:23

YABU. Read this website for information on families affected by Mitochondrial Disease.

www.thelilyfoundation.org.uk/