Mummy, Daddy, Mummy

[Gob]

MPs have voted in favour of the creation of babies with DNA from two women and one man, in an historic move.





The UK is now set to become the first country to introduce laws to allow the creation of babies from three people.

In a free vote in the Commons, 382 MPs were in favour and 128 against the technique that stops genetic diseases being passed from mother to child.

During the debate, ministers said the technique was "light at the end of a dark tunnel" for families.

A further vote is required in the House of Lords. It everything goes ahead then the first such baby could be born next year.

Proponents said the backing was "good news for progressive medicine" but critics say they will continue to fight against the technique that they say raises too many ethical and safety concerns.

Estimates suggest 150 three-person babies could be born each year.

Prime Minister David Cameron said: "We're not playing god here, we're just making sure that two parents who want a healthy baby can have one."

The method, which was developed in Newcastle, should help women like Sharon Bernardi, from Sunderland, who lost all seven of her children to mitochondrial disease.

Ms Bernadi said was "overwhelmed" by the decision.

Mitochondria are the tiny compartments inside nearly every cell of the body that convert food into useable energy. They have their own DNA, which does not affect characteristics such as appearance.

Defective mitochondria are passed down only from the mother. They can lead to brain damage, muscle wasting, heart failure and blindness.

The technique uses a modified version of IVF to combine the DNA of the two parents with the healthy mitochondria of a donor woman.

It results in babies with 0.1% of their DNA from the second woman and is a permanent change that would be passed down through the generations.

[MajGenl.Meade]

That looks remarkably like the formula for the perfect cocktail...

[rubato]

As long as the hopeful parents pay the bill it's fine with me.


having children is a good, not a right.


yrs,
rubato

[BoSoxGal]

having children is a good, not a right.


yrs,
rubato

Actually, procreation and parenting is recognized as a right, at least in the US legal system. It's a right that also brings obligations that can be addressed by law when unmet - but it's definitely a right.
That's why we no longer sterilize mentally disabled people, and why health insurance covers fertility treatments, and why the spouses of prisoners have, at least in some cases, been provided conjugal visits and/or access to sperm donations from inside the pen.

[MajGenl.Meade]

access to sperm donations from inside the pen

[rubato]

having children is a good, not a right.


yrs,
rubato

Actually, procreation and parenting is recognized as a right, at least in the US legal system. It's a right that also brings obligations that can be addressed by law when unmet - but it's definitely a right.
That's why we no longer sterilize mentally disabled people, and why health insurance covers fertility treatments, and why the spouses of prisoners have, at least in some cases, been provided conjugal visits and/or access to sperm donations from inside the pen.

I think that means your fertility cannot be interfered with by another. It is a negative right. It does not entitle you to on-demand fertility treatments.

Yrs,
Rubato

[BoSoxGal]

13 states, including the two I've lived in most recently (Montana and Massachusetts) require that fertility treatments be covered - since the 1980s.

[rubato]

13 states, including the two I've lived in most recently (Montana and Massachusetts) require that fertility treatments be covered - since the 1980s.

Then it is (unfortunately) a right in law (not a natural right) in a minority of states and then only for those with HI. But even if we decided collectively to cover non-reconstructive cosmetic surgery that would not make it a natural right.


yrs,
rubato

Kaiser-Permanente provides fertility treatments only on a fee-for-service basis.

[Guinevere]

Yes, a requirement to cover infertility treatment services is a creature of state statute, and a choice by that state legislature on behalf of its citizens. As you can imagine, there are plenty of hoops to go through and you must meet a certain definition of "infertility." In addition, only certain kinds of services are covered, and for a limited number of "attempts." I am unaware of any such thing as blanket infertility treatment coverage, because while we all indeed have a natural right to engage in procreation (an a privacy right to limit our ability to procreate), we are not guaranteed the medical right to be actually able to procreate.

[BoSoxGal]

13 states, including the two I've lived in most recently (Montana and Massachusetts) require that fertility treatments be covered - since the 1980s.

Then it is (unfortunately) a right in law (not a natural right) in a minority of states and then only for those with HI. But even if we decided collectively to cover non-reconstructive cosmetic surgery that would not make it a natural right.


yrs,
rubato

Kaiser-Permanente provides fertility treatments only on a fee-for-service basis.

Actually, the case law regarding parenting children, once they've been created (however they get created), focuses on parenting as one of the essential liberties and natural rights of human beings.

But whatever, what do I know - I've only been involved in child neglect cases for about 14 years now.

[Big RR]

Kaiser-Permanente provides fertility treatments only on a fee-for-service basis.

their website shows that a number of their insurance plans cover this as well in some policies. It depends on the insurance plan you get from them, but many Kaiser HMO plans cover these treatments.