Call Me WAHMmy

Passage — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 13:24:23 GMT

I remember back when my daughter was born, getting a card that gave me permission to let my regular work

re: Owie.

Carol — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 09:12:15 GMT

your comment today sums up part of the bioethical dilemma we face now. On the other end of the scale, there are the "pre-born" who 10 years ago would never have been considered viable. What bothers me is, who chooses? A co-worker gave birth to a 28-week baby boy, and though he was tiny and had less than a week of rough respiratory problems, he went home well before his due date--no monitors, no alarms, and by all clinical criteria, a perfectly healthy little boy. In the 10 years since he has exhibited none of the many pitfalls of prematurity. Or the folks like Norman Vaughn who explored the antarctic with Peary and climbed a mountain in the antarctic at age 88. He had a heart transplant in his 80s because he was in such good health, and died at age 100, the morning after his birthday party.

When you look at the genetic picture is is even more frightening. Some time ago on TV there was a special about a man who found out he was adopted, and then found that his best friend all through school and college was also his biological brother. Eventually he found 7 more brothers and sisters--and one of the sisters was a girl he had dated and considered marrying.

Maybe you've read recently of Donor X--a sperm donor who passed on a genetic abnormality to at least a half dozen kids--there was a picture of all the kids, and they even looked alike.

And then there are folks freezing cord blood so their offspring can be "fixed" if there's a genetic problem later on. And.....

Where does this merry-go-round stop, and who gets to choose? The health care industry really doesn't want it to change because all those procedures cost lotsa bucks, and at the end of the day, our pockets are empty and theirs are bulging.