|
|
Post by hollydzie on Feb 26, 2013 13:54:06 GMT -5
Sheri, that certainly does give food for thought. It will be interesting to see how people respond. On a personal note, there where genetic health issues in my biological family. My husband and I made a conscious decision not to have biological children. We have 2 wonderful children through the gift of adoption. On a funny note in their personalities they are carbon copies of me and my husband. If for the fact that we don't look alike you would have thought we birthed them LOL Holly Attachments:
|
|
|
|
Post by Maple View Farm on Feb 26, 2013 14:15:30 GMT -5
Holly, your family is so sweet. Thank you for sharing. Your kids are beautiful!! My hubby is abopted and the strange thing is, he looks like his adopted father! Cool how that happens.
|
|
|
|
Post by kozzy on Feb 26, 2013 15:57:59 GMT -5
My step-daughter has a rare genetic affliction which is passed on through genes only in the male line. This affliction results in 100% spontaneous miscarriage of male fetuses and the females can range from severely affected (retardation, malformations, horrible painful deaths a little later) to only having a slightly greater propensity toward cancers with few other signs.
Fortunately, after being given about 3 weeks to live due to the problems at the age of 10, my Daughter is doing just fine, is a store manager with a decently paying job, and has little negative from the affliction, and is planning marriage in the summer. It's almost like the affliction disappeared completely.
What you've asked is virtually impossible to answer. It's basically trying to look in a crystal ball to weigh probabilities. At what probability does one define a hard "cut-off" point? It's easy to weigh the benefits of stopping the negative but how does one weigh the positives when it works out? Melanie, the sweetest young woman you'd ever want to meet, wouldn't exist if one simply played the negative odds game.
Off the cuff, what comes to mind is what they teach the FFA kids around here regarding their "pets" going to slaughter. They tell them to remember that, for their brief lives, the critters were given a far better life and attention than a commercially raised animal--to focus on the good part and the LIVING part and not the end.
I suppose similar can be said on the human scale. Even when a genetic affliction will eventually be fatal, the judgement of overall success should be the focus on the good parts of life--the life lived, even if cut short or sprinkled with pain/hardship.
As a final answer to the "odds question" in light of my comments above there are 2 choices to me: 100% NO procreation, or 100% hope and dealing with stuff as it comes up in the most positive way possible. Those are really the only true choices. With the first, you are insured of 100% success in stopping both the negative AND the positive. With the second, you will have 100% positive but there will be a hell of a lot of pain involved too so it won't feel that way until all things settle and you can look back at the joys.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2013 17:03:21 GMT -5
We also genetic test for everything possible and use this information to assist in our breeding program. We breed chondro-carriers and will continue to do so while the Dexter is the bovine of choice on our property. We even market our decision to breed with Chondro as staying “traditional”. We came into the Dexter breed after the uprising of PHA, and after testing our herd we do not have any PHA carriers. But we did speak about the possibilities as we waited for our test results, and we would have still bred with PHA, maintaining traits and desirables, but we would have eventually moved to breeding PHA free Dexters. I have heard of many a Dexters sent to slaughter as soon as it was discovered they were PHA cariers……….wonder if any of those Dexters were homozygous for great feet, strong toplines, well-rounded butts, etc  ? Maybe it’s the differences in the “flight or fight” response in us humans on how we deal with undesirables ?! |
|
|
|
Post by Cascade Meadows Farm - Kirk on Feb 27, 2013 3:12:59 GMT -5
RedRidge
If I were the male in your story, I would NOT father a child and risk passing my problem gene along, but I might ask a male relative of mine without the problem gene (perhaps a brother or uncle or cousin) to donate some problem-free semen for insemination. So "My" daughters would still have the same 4 genetic grandparents, but without any chance of having the breast-cancer gene. I have no need to pass my genes to children if there is a known problem. I'd also be happy to adopt.
In the case of livestock, I could live fine without any DNA testing at all, because I'm willing to cull any problems that might arise. I raise several other breeds of animals without any DNA tests at all and I prefer it. DNA testing can become a burden (even in the cases where it provides helpful information).
The difference between the human example and the animal example is that I can easily cull any livestock problems and turn them into yummy Sunday dinner for my breast-cancer free daughters and their daughters and granddaughters.
One piece of good news in the human example, is that they may soon be able to sort through sperm and select sperm without the breast cancer gene for insemination.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jams Hundred on Feb 27, 2013 12:03:35 GMT -5
::)My udder would get me culled!
|
|
|
|
Post by hollydzie on Feb 27, 2013 12:15:00 GMT -5
Jams Hundred~ you aren't the only me too  |
|
|
|
Post by Morning Star Farm on Feb 27, 2013 13:34:30 GMT -5
Jams & Holly...I think I would be classified as more beefy than dairy...and not a long leg either....I might be a keeper. lol ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Cascade Meadows Farm - Kirk on Feb 27, 2013 16:42:05 GMT -5
Just curious what your solution would be if you already ha daughters when you discovered you were a carrier? Not that it would be "your" solution but "theirs" I'd do everything possible to dead-end those serious problem genes so my grandchildren and great grandchildren wouldn't suffer. 1. wouldn't have more children myself (self sterilization) 2. would recommend that my daughter had 3 month exams and possibly preventative removal and good plastic surgery. 3. would recommend that my daughter consider self-sterilization and she adopt children instead (although there may be technology to screen eggs for serious problem genes). Some genes are just too dangerous to consider passing them to the next generation if you can help it. |
|
|
|
Post by cddexter on Feb 27, 2013 22:48:17 GMT -5
Thanks, kirk. hard decisions.
I just came back from a trip with a friend. She just had to get away for a bit, to give herself some breathing room. her husband has a genetic disorder that didn't manifest until he was already in his late 50's, causes symptoms similar to alzheimers and parkinsons combined, plus incontinence. Their retirement dreams are in tatters, and all their savings will have to go to keeping him alive and safe from himself. She will be the primary caregiver.
Their son was tested, and he's inherited the gene, which multiplies with each generation, and he already at 30 is showing some symptoms. She's doing her best, but is appalled that her husband's siblings won't even get tested, classic ostrich behavior.
The really sad part is her son, before they had any idea of any of this, divorced his wife because he wanted children and she decided she didn't after all. Now, he's found out he inherited the same condition from his dad, and has decided not to have children so as to not pass on the problem. Great ethics, great tragedy.
In the end, we are all animals. We just have more options. cheers, c.
|
|
|
|
Post by wvdexters on Feb 28, 2013 8:50:53 GMT -5
These are tough, tough questions.
No families (gene pools) are clean. We all have issues lurking around in there.
Our neighbors have neurofibromitosis; elephant man's disease. Man (mild case) married woman, fathered 7 children. Most were affected, only 1 or 2 were born not carriers. Most of the affected children are gone now as a result of the disease as is the father. One affected son (around 50 yrs old) still lives at home with his mother. He has a full time job but never married.
When I look at this family I see a loving family. A son who has chosen not to pass on this genetic disease. But I also see all those grandchildren and great-grandchildren running around happy and healthy. They would not exist if Grandma and Grandpa had had no children.
Perhaps we should also consider the other point of view. We should ask those who are found to be carriers of these types of genetic diseases if they are glad they were born; given a chance to live. Do they embrace their life? Shortened or altered maybe. But are they, you, me; glad we were conceived and born into this world.
Just something to think about.
|
|
|
|
Post by Clive on Mar 2, 2013 12:47:22 GMT -5
Maybe not really relevant but alters the decision I feel....men can and do get breast cancer I read. Not many, but they do apparently if you Google it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jams Hundred on Mar 2, 2013 14:27:06 GMT -5
Clive,
"Our" governments are killing us with their kindness and concern for our well being. Here they are raiding ( at gun point and with massive swat teams) small producers who sell raw milk and even cheeses to the public.
At the least I should have the right to kill myself with my food choices rather than the government doing if for me! LOL
The medical profession is fully aware that the reproductive organ cancers now rampant in our population in both males and females are due to hormones yet the meat and dairy products are full of hormones, and antibiotics. Our water system has residues of prescription medications that cannot be filtered. I was told just this week that poultry is worse than beef! Now many of the vegetables we purchase commercially have pesticide residue that cannot be washed off.
Judy
|
|
?
