 |
He tries not to get the three confused. |
 |
| |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
28% discount if you order here before 15 November |
I am confused. In February this year, the UK Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority granted a licence for the parents of a two-year-old child suffering from thalassaemia, which causes permanent pain and leads to death in the early twenties, to ensure that a future child will not suffer from the same disease. This can only be ensured by embryo selection. Then earlier this month the same authority denied another couple the right to screen a future embryo to ensure that it was a perfect tissue match for their three-year-old suffering from a rare blood disorder, diamond blackfan anaemia. The child needs the tissue for a potentially life-saving bone marrow transplant. The HFEA claims that the decision in the first case was because the disease is hereditary and the proposed action is for the benefit of the future child, while the in the second case the disease is not hereditary and the proposed action would be for the benefit of the existing child. It's a good point, but it's about as relevant as the number of angels on the head of a pin. The parents denied the right to screen their embryo are not intending to have a baby for the sole benefit of saving the life of their first child. They are not planning a Robin Cook-scenario where the new-born child will be kept in the cellar, comatose and hooked up to drips that keep him or her alive but unconscious while vital body fluids are drained. They want a healthy family and think that a second child might not only be a boon in itself, but could help save the life of its elder sibling. After all, how many children are naturally conceived purely for their own benefit? How many are conceived by accident, contraception failiing or couples forgetting or one partner drunk or the result of rape? And how many are conceived selfishly, by parents whose marriage or relationship is falling apart but who believe that a child will somehow keep them together, or by single mothers who insist that the demands of their biological clock are more important than the right of a child to be brought up by its genetic mother and father? And how many children are conceived by parents who believe that it is their religious or patriotic duty to procreate as often as possible? While many of us have strong opinions about whether or not we want to be parents, relatively few make considered decisions as to the circumstances in which we conceive - and many of those who do so act out of concern for their own needs rather than the needs of the future child. So when a couple makes a rational choice intended to benefit the existing and future child rather than themselves, it is disheartening to see bureaucrats turn them down when they should be applauded. Canadian News The Royal Bank of Canada has reportedly closed down a bank account opened by the "No Committee 2006," an anti-gay group whose only reason to exist is to oppose bringing the gay games to Montreal in 2006 (I can't think of a better reason to bring the games there now). The Royal Bank told the phobes that "we will not knowingly open and operate bank accounts for groups whose express purpose is to incite discrimination against minorities." How's them for fighting words? It gets better. Reportedly, the bank emailed the following explanation to militant fundamentalist in the US who were rabblerousing on behalf of the Canadian anti-gay group: "In the Montreal situation," the bank wrote, "we were advised by in-house legal counsel and by two of Canada's most prominent law firms (for a total of 3 different legal opinions) that the actions and statements of the NO Committee 2006 could incite discrimination towards homosexuals. In this regard, there is a world of difference between having an opinion (e.g., homosexuality is a sin), and actively inciting fear, hatred, and discrimination. In this case, the No Committee 2006 wanted to prevent a group of people from participating in a sporting event solely because of their sexual orientation." The anti-gay bigots are now trying to inundate the Bank with angry e-mails and phone calls about this issue. Please take a moment and contact the bank, giving 'em a big atta-boy/atta-girl for taking a stand against inciting discrimination against minorities. Toll-free telephone: 1-800-ROYAL(r) 4-0 (1 800 769-2540) - then press 2. Service in French: 1-800-ROYAL(r) 4-1 (1 800 769-2541) Fax: (416) 974-3561 Fax: (416) 974-7403 E-mail: custrel@rbc.com spotted on ap-rainbow, 18 Aug 2002 Read!! Buy!!   
|
28% discount if you order here before 15 November |
Nothing |
Nothing |
 |
 |
| 23 August 2002 |
 |
|
© Martin Foreman |