Dwarfism and ethics

[Everlasting33]

Is it morally wrong for little people (sometimes referred to as "dwarfs") to have children? The chance for two dwarfs to have a dwarf child is 50% http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/05/health/05essa.html

Here are some of the physical problems commonly known to dwarfism:

"Physical maleffects of malformed bones vary according to the specific disease. Many involve joint pain caused by abnormal bone alignment, or from nerve compression (e.g., spinal stenosis).[2] Early degenerative joint disease, exaggerated lordosis or scoliosis, and constriction of spinal cord or nerve roots can cause pain and disability.[10] Reduced thoracic size can restrict lung growth and reduce pulmonary function. Some forms of dwarfism are associated with disordered function of other organs, such as the brain or liver, sometimes severely enough to be more disabling than the abnormal bone growth.[11] As well, many dwarfs are given injections of Human Growth Hormone (HGH) during their early years, but the HGH injections may adversely affect the cardiac muscles, making them too large or thick to properly function, causing death through cardiac failure in the patient.[12]" Dwarfism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I don't believe the government should tell families how many children they should have. However, given the serious physical deformities and suffering of many individuals with dwarfism, I have to wonder if its ethical to have children knowing that they have a 50% chance of inheriting the same disorder.

What do you all think?

 

[Autumnleaf]

I think only tall blond haired blue eyed people with lots of muscles should have children.

 

[Everlasting33]

I think only tall blond haired blue eyed people with lots of muscles should have children.

I don't believe in telling someone they cannot have children but I believe in wise and careful discernment when having children, especially with a serious disorder such as dwarfism.

It is a gray area to be sure...but its certainly interesting conversation.

 

[Nathan45]

umm the article you linked is about people who specifically set out to have children with the same disability that they have... not exacly the topic of your post.

and yes, dwarves should be allowed to have children. Once there are enough of them they can drill a hole in a mountain and establish the Kingdom of Ironforge.

 

[Autumnleaf]

I don't believe in telling someone they cannot have children but I believe in wise and careful discernment when having children, especially with a serious disorder such as dwarfism.

It is a gray area to be sure...but its certainly interesting conversation.

It is very interesting. A college professor once told me the main group of intentional abortions of healthy normal babies was babies of dwarfs, because they want babies who are like them so they abort the normal ones. Its a sad loss of life but I guess I can see how parents would want children like them.

 

[Everlasting33]

umm the article you linked is about people who specifically set out to have children with the same disability that they have... not exacly the topic of your post.

and yes, dwarves should be allowed to have children. Once there are enough of them they can drill a hole in a mountain and establish the Kingdom of Ironforge.

I was giving my reference about the 50%, since I was not able to find the statistic on other websites.

 

[Everlasting33]

It is very interesting. A college professor once told me the main group of intentional abortions of healthy normal babies was babies of dwarfs, because they want babies who are like them so they abort the normal ones. Its a sad loss of life but I guess I can see how parents would want children like them.

Given the probable mental and physical suffering of these individuals, I would have to ask whether its moral for parents to deliberately want a child with dwarfism.

It's almost like a schizophrenic individual wanting to have a schizophrenic child to "be like them."..its quite disturbing to have this type of thinking.

 

[Nathan45]

I was giving my reference about the 50%, since I was not able to find the statistic on other websites.

ah. i didn't read that far into the article.

25% chance of being normal
50% chance of being dwarves
25% chance of being very seriously deformed or dead. ( i'm surprised you didn't mention this?)

so the dwarf gene is dominant, but with extra effects if you get two copies. Simple heredity.

 

[BlessEwe]

Perhaps watch the show Little People Big World... it may shed some light for you. The mom and dad are small, and 1 out of 4 of their children are small. They have as much right morally and ethically as you and I.
Anyone has a chance of having a baby with a disability. If you look into the genetics, it may help but really it could pop up from many generations before us.

 

[Nathan45]

anyway, it should be legal because the government should not be in the business of deciding what genes are beneficial or detrimental. I don't support eugenics through coercion.

 

[Everlasting33]

anyway, it should be legal because the government should not be in the business of deciding what genes are beneficial or detrimental. I don't support negative eugenics through coercion.

I agree. What about when parents deliberately want their child to be a dwarf?

 

[Nathan45]

I agree. What about when parents deliberately want their child to be a dwarf?

that's iffier, but i think it should be legal also.

A more interesting question: What if they find the "Smart gene" someday, and parents want their kids to be smart, so they do some genetics work on embryos or their DNA, and end up with smart kids?

The larger question is whether genetic tampering with future children's DNA should be allowed. I'd answer "Yes".

 

[Everlasting33]

that's iffier, but i think it should be legal also.

A more interesting question: What if they find the "Smart gene" someday, and parents want their kids to be smart, so they do some funky genetics work and end up with smart kids?

The question is equivilent to your question--if you agree that the government shouldn't be in the business of deciding which genes are beneficial and which genes are detrimental.

The larger question is whether genetic tampering with embryo's DNA should be allowed. I'd answer "Yes".

Yes, I believe it should also be legal but I don't believe its a healthy or wise thing to do.

But its one thing to improve your child's life, its another to cause suffering and pain by dwarfism or something similar.

 

[lawtonfogle]

umm the article you linked is about people who specifically set out to have children with the same disability that they have... not exacly the topic of your post.

and yes, dwarves should be allowed to have children. Once there are enough of them they can drill a hole in a mountain and establish the Kingdom of Ironforge.

/thread

 

[peadar1987]

that's iffier, but i think it should be legal also.

A more interesting question: What if they find the "Smart gene" someday, and parents want their kids to be smart, so they do some genetics work on embryos or their DNA, and end up with smart kids?

The larger question is whether genetic tampering with future children's DNA should be allowed. I'd answer "Yes".

I'd be inclined to say "no". It would only increase the gap between the rich, who could afford these treatments, and the poor, who would not be able to.

 

[Nathan45]

I'd be inclined to say "no". It would only increase the gap between the rich, who could afford these treatments, and the poor, who would not be able to.

I don't understand why that is a serious concern. The rich can't take advantage of technology if it would make the poor jealous?

 

[lawtonfogle]

I'd be inclined to say "no". It would only increase the gap between the rich, who could afford these treatments, and the poor, who would not be able to.

But what about everything else we let the rich do which already increases the divide as is, like being able to go to great colleges? I was able to get into a good one, but I would not have been able to afford out of state.

 

[Mystman]

But what about everything else we let the rich do which already increases the divide as is, like being able to go to great colleges? I was able to get into a good one, but I would not have been able to afford out of state.

That's also a stupid system; the level of education that you receive should be based on your own skills and desires, not on the wealth of your parents. Luckily, in Holland that's already the case.

Anyway, I think the issue in the OP also depends on the type of government.

With a very minimalist government, where you only pay tax for Defense/Police, getting kids with clear disorders might be morally neutral. Sure, being a dwarf might suck.. but the parents in this case would be experts on the suckiness of being a dwarf, and they at least think it's a life worth living. The issue of "is it better to be born and have a sub-optimal life, or to never be born?" is a difficult one, and one that can't really be answered I think.

With a very social government, where health care/housing/food/etc is provided to all citizens, deliberately creating disordered kids might be a bit more problematic. Basically, some people cost a fortune to keep alive. And that fortune could otherwise be spent on increasing the life-expectancy/happiness of others. Creating a child, and knowing that the child is going to cause a bunch of other people to lead worse/shorter lives, is immoral imho. Of course, this is again a big gray area, with various degrees of disorders costing various amounts of money...

..I think the 'coldest' but also most honest approach would be to make a rough estimate of the "expected value" that a certain child is going to cost. Prior to birth/conception, estimate the probabilities of various after-birth scenarios, calculate the cost/benefit of each scenario, and then decide whether a child is likely to make a profit or a loss. If it's a loss; no birth.

Pretty harsh, but more objective than just going by a gut feeling on a case-by-case basis.

 

[Mystman]

Pretty harsh, but more objective than just going by a gut feeling on a case-by-case basis.

To nuance that a bit: whether or not such a "estimated value" should be calculated (and what kind of 'threshold' values you use), also depends on how big the problem is.

Say a particular genetic disorder costs society 1 million dollars. And say that ~10 babies with that disorder are born each year, babies who -apart from the medical procedures- will likely lead pretty happy lives. In such a case, just taking the 10 million dollar loss might lead to more overall happiness. Preventing people from having kids for 'financial reasons' is likely to create unhappiness, even in people that aren't even directly involved.

The problem with that nuance is that it again makes the problem very subjective; you can't objectively compare the cost of a child with the "general unhappiness" created by not giving birth to the child. At best, you might estimate the cost it would take to undo that general unhappiness by other means (e.g., creating a state sponsored theme park or something), but that's going into pretty weird territory.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

I don't understand why that is a serious concern. The rich can't take advantage of technology if it would make the poor jealous?

What a typically... American response!
You'd sedately watch as society breaks up like that? And you can't even see the inherent injustice? Wow. Just wow.