Hereditary illness

[stu]

@akincana

Humans with genetic defects are just such a tiny fraction of all possible kinds of birth.

I guess that I have a problem with the type of thinking that leads to the use of terms such as ‘genetic defects’ as you have used it here.

Firstly there is an implication that the person who is considered to have a ‘genetic defect’ is also defective in some sense.

Secondly once we start to use such terms, then we have a concept of the opposite which would be something like ‘genetic correct’ or even ‘genetic perfect’. This thinking has lead to some very dubious movements such as the eugenics movement that plagued much of the Western world in the early 20th Century. This idea of eugenics seems to be the topic of this thread. It is a topic that is close to me, because even as recently as my 1960-70s childhood in the UK, those with certain genetic conditions were encouraged not to ever have children as part of the education system. This policy is no longer in use and has been discredited. I now see a resurgence of this view and the language that fuels it.

The OP seemed to be skirting around the subject of whether it was wise to practice negative eugenics (in the form of reduced rates of sexual reproduction of people with less-desired or undesired traits).

My point in:

@akincana

Comparing birth as a girl to birth with a hereditary disease!

was to highlight that many many people (myself included) have genetic traits that other people find undesirable and which lead them to label me with the pejorative phrase ‘genetic defect’, and hence (however subtly) advocate for the removal of that trait. I believe that this (your?) view is misguided. For me it is as misguided as labelling a newly born girl as a ‘genetic defect’.

So yes, there are many people without my genetic condition that would prefer there would not to be people such as myself in the world, and hence they use language such as ‘genetic defect’.

There are also many people with my genetic condition who would rather not have this condition, but I am certainly not one of them. I am quite happy with my genetic condition even though it does create more difficulties (but also more opportunities) for me in my life than some others. In the same way, a baby girl born into this world is likely to have more difficulties (but also more opportunities) in life because of her genetic condition of being born without a Y chromosome.

This is why I thought it was a useful reflection. I’m sorry that you didn’t find it useful or relevant, and that you had such a bad reaction to it.

@ERose

As gender selective abortion (which breaks the 1st precept) or gender selective artificial insemination are now known technologies, i note that the societies which have allowed or failed to suppress this have suffered as a result of gender ratio skewing; not enough women to marry seems to lead to child marriages, and increased societal violence for girls and women, boys and men. Hazardous technology?

We’re getting a bit off topic, but I note that in the UK (where we have our beloved NHS - The National Health Service), in some regional areas where there are social pressures for gender selective abortion, the NHS will no longer tell the parents the sex of the child during routine prenatal check-ups. This seems like a very good NHS policy to me just to show that this sort of thinking is unacceptable in this particular society, although I’m not sure how effective it is in decreasing the number of abortions based on the sex of the foetus.

[SC1100]

@Nimal Forgot to mention some of the points. If someone is aware about something, does it mean they have intention?

For example, you know and aware there is an ant on the ground yet you step on it, this counts as killing. But when someone knows and is aware he/she has hereditary illness yet they still want to have children, why this does not count as passing down the illness, both of them are aware, right?

[Metaphor]

@SC1100

For example, you know and aware there is an ant on the ground yet you step on it, this counts as killing. But when someone knows and is aware he/she has hereditary illness yet they still want to have children, why this does not count as passing down the illness, both of them are aware, right?

I am not a geneticist nor medical researcher, so someone will correct me if I am mistaken, but passing on a hereditary illness is a statistical likelihood, not an absolute certainty.

There are, I surmise, hundreds of genetic mutations that can be passed on through procreation, some of which may or may not result in a pathological manifestation. Many so-called heredity illnesses are actually genetically-coded mutations that may or mat not manifest themselves depending on a host of environmental factors.

Being aware and knowing that one has a genetic mutation does not necessarily mean that it will appear in one or more subsequent generations of offspring. There may be an increased statistical likelihood, but unless one knows for sure that it will be manifested in offspring and that it will result in harm, it does not seem to me that any harm is intended.

This would seem to suggest that to someone practicing Buddhism, some principle or teaching aside from the First Precept should come into play when making these decisions. Medical ethicists have pondered this question for decades. I have not practiced Buddhism long enough to have sufficient knowledge on this matter, but it would seem that there should be scholars who have reflected on this question.

Edit: There is now general agreement in some medical quarters that all male human beings eventually will develop prostate cancer if they live long enough and do not die from some other cause prior to manifesting the genetically-coded disposition apparently present in all men to manifest prostate cancer. Does this mean that no male human should reproduce given the now-believed absolute certainty that prostate cancer is genetically programmed into the homo sapiens species? I realize this is a rhetorical question and a form of reductio ad absurdum, but it is nonetheless relevant to the discussion.

[ERose]

Human knowledge of genetics is still limited. It is complicated, it is flexible, it is adaptable.

http://genetics.thetech.org/original_news/news13 I noticed this short article in response to a query about human genetics, black plague, and decendents’ disease resistances. i think it is a fairly accessible article.

So … thinking we “know” how kamma manifests in illnesses seems to depend on several sorts of ignorance (including scientific). Thinking we “know” how kamma might affect rebirth (which the Buddha taught as being controlled not by kamma alone, but also by numerous other factors) seems an unsupportable view. Being smug, or feeling superior, about “our” kamma vs others’ kamma, seems an embarrassing display of ignorance.

i think one should avoid doing harm, with calm and humility about what oneself or others can really “know”, and detachment from social pressures, prejudices, or ignorance however seemingly “good intentioned”.

This is the precious burden opportunity of sentience, neh?

[akincana]

@stu

Comparing birth as a girl to birth with a hereditary disease!

Is a disease a defect? …

I do not identify very closely with this topic.

I also never did a DNA test, so I do not know, whether any of my DNA is defective. But I suppose, it is quite un-likely, that there will be “no defects” anywhere among the large number of chromosomes.

To my understanding humans will have children (or not), whatever their DNA is, …

But it rankles my sense of fairness, if the birth of a girl-child is compared to a disease. — In some cases male off-spring may turn out to be much more disappointing than female.
In any case, I would not even consider to “do away with” a child, that is alive - even before it is born.

[stu]

@akincana

But it rankles my sense of fairness, if the birth of a girl-child is compared to a disease.

The quote that you have attributed to me, is actually your own quote not mine. But having said that, from an early Buddhist point of view isn’t all birth compared to a disease? It’s the first Noble truth - Quite literally - Dis-ease = dukkha. Maybe I could suggest that life is an hereditary disease. This reflection is getting more mileage than I thought

@akincana

In some cases male off-spring may turn out to be much more disappointing than female.

Yes. That’s true. And it is also true that some people born without a predisposition to a hereditary disease (such as the ones listed in the OP, i.e anxiety disorder, compulsive disorder, cancer, diabetes) turn out to be much more disappointing than those who do have a predisposition to those hereditary diseases. But, of course we have to ask the question here: “Disappointing, to whom?”. Their parents? Society? The individual themselves?

If, as a parent, you want the perfect child, then any child that doesn’t live up to your idea of that perfect child is going to be disappointing. If you want a boy, it’s going to be disappointing to get a girl; if you want a girl, it’s going to be disappointing to get a boy. Likewise with hereditary diseases - ‘not getting what one wants is suffering’.

[akincana]

@stu

isn’t all birth compared to a disease? It’s the first Noble truth - Quite literally - Dis-ease = dukkha. Maybe I could suggest that life is an hereditary disease. T

Well, I like that. … I am trying to go beyond it.

[ERose]

@akincana

How sick can you get?

Comparing birth as a girl to birth with a hereditary disease!

@stu

As an aside for reflection, what if we were to compare your question with the idea of having a boy or having a girl? We know that (statistically) women have a worse time in this world than men do, from education, to exploitation, to pay in jobs, to becoming a mendicant. Given that there is (genetically) over a 50% chance of having a girl (who may or may not suffer more in this life due to being a girl, but does have a statistically higher chance of suffering more), would we ask the same question?

Gentle beings, i do not think the thought experiment is original to either of you, or this thread, or irrelevant in a world when even now we can see opposition to Theravada bhikkhuni ordination restoration.

Another non original thought i can offer: it may be fortunate to not be born into a body likely to be affected by the influence of testosterone, or entangled in male status…

But imo even “persons” in male vehicles can be liberated. =D

“…” added in edit.

[akincana]

Beings in the Brahma plains have gone beyond limitations.

[ERose]

Sorry, perhaps to a better educated person, how that relates to the OP or thread may be clear; please, can you elaborate your point?

[SC1100]

@Nimal @Metaphor
Do you think if we, for example, have hereditary illness and we decide not to have children, that means we try to prevent them from suffering from such illness, right? Will that close the door of opportunity for the children to have such illness?

[Metaphor]

@SC1100

Do you think if we, for example, have hereditary illness and we decide not to have children, that means we try to prevent them from suffering from such illness, right? Will that close the door of opportunity for the children to have such illness?

These are two separate question, one having to do with motivation and the other having to do with ability.

If a person tries to prevent the suffering of others, this speaks to the person’s motivation to avoid creating harm. This is a function of the person’s thoughts and therefore is motivated by what the person things is right,moral, ethical, just, etc.

If a person does not transmit a genetic predisposition to offspring, this is merely interfering with the ability of said predisposition to manifest itself in subsequent generations. This is an empirical question, not a question of motivation.

Whether harm occurs thus is a combination of choices and statistical likelihood. Even if a choice is made to reproduce, there is still only a statistical likelihood that harm will result from the transmission of genetic predisposition, not a certainty.

[Nimal]

@SC1100

Do you think if we, for example, have hereditary illness and we decide not to have children, that means we try to prevent them from suffering from such illness, right? Will that close the door of opportunity for the children to have such illness?

This is a very difficult question to answer. First off, we decide not to have children because we have a hereditary illness. This is intention. The Buddha said intention is kamma-action. On the surface of it, it seems like a wholesome intention because we are certain that the hereditary illness will be passed on to the children and they will suffer as a result. But how accurate is this assumption?.

I have heard that Beethovan’s mother was a drug addict and when she conceived Beethovan as 6th or the 7th child of the family, the doctors advised her to abort because the doctors were confident that the child (Beethovan) would have a lot of defects due to mother’s addiction. But you know probably more than I do, what a music legend Beethovan turned out to be. Had the mother listened to the doctors’ advice, the world would not have had a Beethovan.

Now the second part is even more difficult. If we take Kamma to be monocausal, then whatever your intention, they will be born to different parents and they will inherit illness. That means it will not close the door for the children to have such illness. But Kamma is not monocausal. You have probably heard about the story of the little lump of salt (AN 3.100).

In fact Kamma is usually thought of as dukkha which is being experienced currently. But this is not Kamma but Vipaka. This is where the real meaning of kamma as intention comes. If someone takes the right intention now, favorable results would follow and vice versa. On the other hand if we leave everything to Kamma and do not do anything about it only dukkha will follow.

So IMO, it is the intention which we take now irrespective of our present situation which could be good or bad, which matters.
With Metta

[greenTara]

Just in the interest of paying attention to fact, the Beethoven story appears to be a myth: Great Beethoven fallacy - RationalWiki