I was wondering about this aspect - 'Do the Downs genes sometimes bring real physical suffering (which we may not see in public places)'.

My motive in considering this topic was related to preventing the physical suffering of my grandmother's friends, and enabling people to live their twilight years in comfort.

I don't see Downs syndrome people in physical discomfort, and in fact they seem happier than most people, so why screen it out?

In other words, one way to approach this is to ask: Would the people with the so called 'disorder' wish to prevent other people from having the same disorder? Would they prefer that they could have been preventing from having it?

If Downs syndrom people are happy as they are (and they appear to be), then this is outside of the 'preventing pain and suffering' that motivated this topic.

If some Downs syndrom people do suffer physically as a result of their genes, this touches on another aspect, which ddn alludes to: how high of a correlation need there be before we screen the genes?

let me ask a question in response to this post.

are there drugs available at the drugstore now on an OTC basis that were prescription only just a few years ago and that have generic equvialent which were not available at first? The examples I'm thinking of include drugs like Claritin. When it first came out, it was highly expensive and only available by prescription.

Why is that? why couldn't the mfr just make it available OTC to begin with and just release the patent so that generics could be made right out of the gates?

I'll tell you why. Research is expensive. Researchers are expensive. The process of making a new drug is possibly one of the most capital intensive undertakings out there, with the possible exception of drilling deep sea oil wells.. and it largely goes without payoff until the drug is approved, tested, re-tested and finally released to the public.

So when the drug is new, the cost of all that process required to bring it to market has to be recovered or else they go out of business and no more future research gets to be undertaken. No more new drugs. no more new and revolutionary treatments get developed.

So when you bash the rich (and I'm not amoung them) for being the only ones to benefit initially from a new (and expensive) treatment/drug/therapy, you in effect bash the process that brought that treatment/drug/therapy to bear in the first place. such is not constructive and not amenable to progress.

Thank you - my thoughts exactly. I'm not a fan of drugs, nor of those aspects of our system which tends to concentrate wealth/power, but if we absolutely insist on equal access to expensive technologies for all, we may get the lowest common denominator in those technologies.

Bash?

I don't recall bashing anyone. I just stated the obviouse facts, just as you did. I didn't pass any judgments on it, other than to state that it is driven by competitive capitalism which you appear to be confirming.

Everything that you've stated about things being expensive is indeed based on competitive capitalism. If a true socialism was the rule, then potentially the process of research and development wouldn't be expensive.

I believe that one of the reasons that socialism is always viewed as being a horrible thing is because it's almost always associated with dictatorship and potential 'loss of freedom'.

However, there is nothing about socialism itself that needs to be associated with either dictatorship or loss of freedom.

All it means is a cooperative-driven society rather than a competitive-driven society.

I personally believe that a democratic socialism would be far better than a democratic captitalism.

If I could chose between living in a cooperative community versus a competitive community (all other factors being the same), I would definitely choose to live in the cooperative community.

Imagine if you can a perfect 'heaven'. What would that be like? Clearly it wouldn't be based on competition, it would be based on cooperation!

It would be a socialism. If it were the Christian heaven it would also clearly be a dictatorship (let there be no doubt about that).

I think we should strive to create "heaven" on Earth. Only instead of having a dictator, we should have a democratically driven socialism (cooperation-based society).

This is what the Christians live for! They are living for the day that Jesus comes back and dictates to the entire world that everyone cooperate and live together as socialism.

So why is it that our mostly Christian nation is based on competitive capitalism? Isn't that an oxymoron?

You'd think if we were truly a Christian nation we'd all be socialists striving for cooperation instead of competition.

Jesus taught cooperative socialism.

Competitive capitalism is the anti-thesis of Christianity.

He also said, "the Lord helps those who help themselves"

I reject your assertion that we should strive for socialist society.. it devalues the individual and his/her potential for contribution and in so doing, dehumanizes the entire populace..

perhaps liberty is not for you, perhaps all you seek is a just master.

I, for one, will take my chances with Liberty. And the historical fact is that socialism crushes liberty here on Earth. If indeed Heaven is a socialist utopia, I'll wait till I get there to experience it, thanks.

And perhaps you didn't see what you said as bashing, but how might it be taken otherwise? Humans are inherently competitive. Put a bunch of liberals in a room and they'll soon begin competing w/ each other over how liberal each of them is..

the classical experiment that refutes the premise of a working socialist society can be observed in any classroom in America..

After the first exam, the teacher says, "ok, on the recent exam we had 5 A's, 15 B's, 35 C's, 17 D's and 13 F's. As a socialist society, we will redistribute the grade points equally amoung the class. Everyone will get the same grade, from each according to his ability to each according to his need. Therefore, all students will recieve a C on the exam regardless of what you scored"

Next exam comes and goes and the teacher gets infront of the class gives the score distribution, "This last exam, students, there was only 1 A, there were 5 B's, 14 C's, 45 D's, and 20 F's. So according to our socialist model, from each according to his ability, to each according to his need, the grade points will be distributed amoung all the memebers of the class, therefore all will given the grade of D+"

See, it's all about human nature. Once people get it in their heads that someone else will make up for their own lack of production, they (we) take this for granted and soon all the producers stop producing such that soon none produce and all go hungry..

In that case you should be tickled pink. The world is precisely as you prefer it to be. If you ever find yourself in a financial rut fighting for you life with no one offering to help you out just remember, that's the way you said it should be.

In that case you should be tickled pink. The world is precisely as you prefer it to be. If you ever find yourself in a financial rut fighting for you life with no one offering to help you out just remember, that's the way you said it should be.

never said the world is as I prefer it to be. I said I'll take my chances with Liberty and that I reject your vision of an ideal world organisation, knowing that your vision is and always will be destined to fail and bring poverty and misery on untold masses, (see soviet breadlines of the 1970's and 80's..)

Your confusing socialism with fascism. This is what most people do.

Socialism has nothing to do with fascism. The only reason that people confuse the two is because the only historical examples of socialism we have were also associated with fascism.

However, I am inclined to agree with you that humans are probably not far enough evolved to actually make socialism work yet. Many people are still behaving like animals and that's not going to work for socialism.

Socialism requires a high degree of intelligence and selflessness and isn't going to work very well if half the society is still reacting on a dog-eat-dog instinctual level.

We may have to wait until everyone catches up intellectually in evolutionary terms.

The only problem is that several geneticists have recognized that the most intelligent people often choose to have no childern or very few children, whilst the least intelligent masses often produce lots of offspring. This suggests that humanity overall may actually be de-volving intellectually.

There's actually a movie out about that call "Idiocracy".

One of the reasons for all this focus on the study of DNA is for this very reason. To find a way to prevent such gene based diseases. To find a way to treat the diseases and hopefully 'fix' these genes in the future.

I know that some places offer such genetic screening for people who are planning on getting married. I've seen a few documentaries on it. The one that stands out most in my memory is the couple that wanted children and the discovery that there was a high probability for a genetic disorder if they had children together. I guess the man wasn't really so in love with his fiance since he broke up with her because having children without the increased risk of this disorder was more important to him than building a life with her.

Abra: (i.e. a Democratic Socialism)

Nothing personal, but
James, you are beautiful!!! (for what really makes a man "attractive", if not HIS THOUGHTS, i.e. mind)???

I tend to agree with you 101%!!! You're quite a visionary -- almost like John Lennon ("Imagine" -- Brotherhood of men)!

Certainly, cooperation is a very desirable trait,
while the UNIVERSAL COOPERATION would appear to be the goal of the Evolution...

Ever wonder why_Chinese are so smart? At the university, I'd often observed the way they study -- always in groups: if either one of them stumbles upon a mental block, the whole group would get involved in helping their "brother" overcome the problem (perceive the subject matter)... In other words, at least at the level of learning process, competition is Non-existant!
And I would assume they would carry the same attitude throughout their lives... Wouldn't it be great, if everybody had the same attitude?!!!

Clearly, a Cooperation-driven society IS the way of the Future!. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

At the same time, I doubt a cash/space/resources strapped society would afford raising the Unproductive citizens, i.e. Down kids:
obviously, families would be given a choice: either terminating the pregnancy, or taking it to full term -- in whuich case it would be the parents' sole responsibility taking care of the abnormal offspring... -- for it wouldn't be fare allocating any of the diminishing resources in vain... [*_IDIOTS are the most happy people -- they don't comprehend anything except of their own bodily functions... Cows, at least, give milk and meat...*]

It follows that voluntary euthanasia will become the way of the future... UNLESS THE HUMANITY WILL FIND A WAY OF ERRADICATING GENE-BASED AND OTHER KINDS OF DESEASES ALL TOGETHER!

Volksgenosse das is auch Dein Geld!

We are in the midst of a health care overhaul. Among several other things, insurance currently has the right to limit coverage, determine if and when a procedure is necessary, and sometimes not to cover certain things at all.

It has been recognized by those who provide services that insurance companies do this, therefore they simply put an expensive price tag on their procedure, drug, or technology and offer it only to those who can pay. It took many years before insurance would cover an amneocentesis, and even when they began to, they often refused to cover the necessary procedures that might save an at risk pregnancy and they sure don't cover abortions when a woman living in poverty can not raise a special needs child. DNA testing is also something that is currently not covered, and at this point the testing is specific. So people who want to plan on children must pay the cost themselves and its pricey.

The point is; having the ability to change a genetic fault which is potentially life threatening should be a concern for all of society because in one way or another we will all pay a price for those who have not been offered a preventative solution.

The French model is looking better and better!

Downs syndrom manifests to varying degrees and yes some of the symptoms are severly life limiting and can cause suffering.

But this brings up yet another moral question about affecting genes. We know that Down's sydrom is a chromozonal disorder, but is it a result of some genetics? If it turns out that a gene is known to be the cause of the chromozone disorder, we cannot just haphazardly decide to eliminate it.

We have so many genes that work in conjunction and so many more that are dormant and we have no understanding of why. We may identify a gene that triggers an undesirable effect, but unless we can be absolutely sure of what the function of that gene is or has been and what else it affects, we may be risking the very survival of our species.

We have only named the primary colors of a brand new box of crayons, we have yet to learn all the colors that can be created as genes find their own connections.

This happens with drugs for patton reasons. It cost drug companies many millions to develop a new drug and it must be patented to complete the testing, that leave little time for the drug to make back the money for these companies. After the time runs out other companies make generic forms and if long term use points to a OTC safety, the drug becomes available on the common market.

This is not so in the case of expensive and extensive procedures for testing and when the procedures are available only to those who can afford them, insurance companies have to incentive to include these procedure under their list of care.

Abra wrote:


Capitalism is the antithesis of an ethical moral standard as well.

just thought I'd add that.

Hi James

Moondark:
Sounds is if you're blaming that man?
If not for kids, why else would a men get married?
Many are happily living in a common-law relationship... until the kids arrive!
MARRIAGE dictates man's responsibility for his wife during the time of need, i.e. pregnancy and raising the children, illness, etc...

The PROCREATION is the biggest part of the woman's nature!
If she's unable fulfilling her prime directive -- with that particular man -- she should seek another partner...***
Otherwise -- if she is genetically predisposed to sickness -- she better stay away from the normal marriage-minded guys, and find herself an infertile man!!!

raiderfan


Sometimes social order is not a matter of politics but a matter of philosophy. Perhaps in your scenario the teacher might say, "today we will break into groups and the A and B students will help the others understand the assignments." This is a social responce, not a competitive one and maybe - just maybe, we would end up with more tolerant and understanding adults who are more concerned about others than about praise for themselves.

KUDO'S to Janestar, for recognizing that collectivist mentality has greater benefits than individualist mentlity.

Redy said:
This is interesting. What if someone wants to pay the price - for whatever reason?

This is my basic objection to the socialist viewpoint. It takes an abstract thing ("group") and tries to treat it as if it were a single, indivisible entity. But it simply is not. The only thing that is "single and indivisible" about it is the aggregate common goals, which have no corporeal existence whatsoever (other than possibly the medium on which they may be written). They are simply individual goals that are common to all members of the group.

And it is those "aggregate common goals" that give rise to morals. The morals are the groups rules of conduct, which are deemed to be the actions that will move all the group members closer toward the goals that every member has in common with every other member.

Now if an individual does not agree with the "common goals" of a group, they are not a member of that group. Period. How could one be considered a member of a group if they do not agree with the group goals? It is the commonality of goals that makes the group. Without that commonality of goals, there is no group!

Of course, group can have some rule such as "if you live within the confines of a specified area, then you are a member of the group".

But that is a total fallacy, bordering on delusion, if an individual living within those confines does not agree with the common goals of the group. Saying "You are a member of this group because this group says you are a member" is hardly discernable from delusion.

So to relate all this back to the subject of mandatory medical procedures...

"Might is Right" is the only thing that makes it "moral" for anyone to impose their will on anyone else. Whether it be an individual imposing their will on another individual, or a majority imposing their will on a minority under the guise of "democray".

In essence, there is no categorical difference between the lion who kills all the cubs when he takes over a pride, and the "government" that requires it's citizens to be inoculated.

Both cases can claim no more "higher moral standard" than "Might is Right."

(Damn I'm in a contrary mood today! )