Japanese government blocks in vitro fertilization procedures for HIV couples
The use of in vitro fertilization for HIV positive couples usually produces a child that are free of HIV. However, due to the slight risk of an HIV positive child being born and the possibility that the child’s HIV positive parents could die of the virus, the Japan’s health ministry recently decided to block the procedure:
Though hospital ethics committee approved the reproduction treatment plan, the ministry has asked the hospital to postpone implementation, saying more deliberation and ethical examination was necessary. In other countries, views are divided over whether reproductive assistance should be offered to couples in similar circumstances.
[...]
In 2004, a special committee of medical experts, mainly from the European Union, issued a recommendation that such reproductive medicine be limited to cases in which only the husband or wife is HIV-positive.
The committee recommended that at least one member of such a couple be responsible for raising a child until adulthood.
However, a British researcher argued future conditions widely varied among HIV-infected people, and that barring such couples from the in vitro treatment option would lower their quality of life.
Katsumi Ohira, director of Habataki Welfare Project, a Tokyo-based foundation for people infected with HIV through tainted medicines, said: “The most important thing is not to create new tragedies. It’s necessary to discuss who should be deemed responsible if babies are infected.”
In addition, support for such children would be essential if both parents die of AIDS before offspring reach adulthood. Ohira said: “Social welfare assistance would also be necessary. If the course of treatment is implemented, it should proceed while consensus is obtained from the broader society.”
| Related Posts: |
|
The Health minister said couples should want at least two kids? How dare he! National Diet Library bans public from viewing documents on trials of U.S. servicemen |
Full RSS Feed
A complex discussion topic where non-experts should not influence experts’ decision.
The right to give life in adverse conditions is always difficult.
In the same context, and with different degrees of impact on the life of our children:
- should terminally ill parents have the right to conceive?
- should mentally ill & dangerous parents have the right to conceive and keep the child?
- should we have the right to destroy what belongs to our kids (yes, I am going green these days..)
Dangerous topics for non-experts
One quote to keep in mind: the quality to excel in a field, and the ability to judge the same field have often the same base. In other terms, the more clueless about a topic, the least you will recognize it, and the stronger your opinion on it.
Daily applications: Geopolitics (politics), Business (I can do better than the boss), new legislation, electing the best candidate to lead a country..
P-A
Rate this comment:
0 
0
How do you define “expert” ? Expert in what ?
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Sorry, but in my opinion, what you say is extremely offensive (although you may be being sarcastic, and if so, my apologies). But it is absolutely not true that only “experts” shoud have input in policy decisions. People have the right to make informed decisions about their own lives within certain reasonable levels. Who gets to decide who is an expert–and keep in mind that most public “experts” get in that position more for political and economic reasons than any particular skill or knowledge. “Experts” used to say that Africans were genetically inferior to whites–should they get to make all decisions for Africans, then? Besides, experts routinely disagree (if you’ve ever been involved in academia, you would know that 10 experts = at least 15 different opinions). People should be given the input of experts, but, ultimately, people should hae the right to self-determination.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
By the way, in case you’re unaware, there are clear genetic differences between “Africans” and “Whites.” The so called experts were not wrong in claiming genetic differences; though claiming inferiority may have been a difficult statement to back. I’m simply bringing this up because people seem to use this story as a false example, when it is really a valid empirical observation that has simply been beaten down by our PC and oversensitive society.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Africans are not genetically inferior (they are not good at civilized society) to whites they’re just generally less intelligent, have less common sense and are more violent.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
For the story, here was the fun article :
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2000/01/18/MN73840.DTL
“Incompetent People Really Have No Clue, Studies Find” .. I’m sure that we’ll find dozens of counter examples and studies going in the other direction. I still love that article for their shocking consequences ..
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Hum, this is going in an emotional direction.
The intention was for all to think about the shocking statement, and realize that we need to be careful of judging too fast. Nothing more.
Perfectly agree that on numerous topics, especially economy, a little digging reveals “expert” opinions going into different directions. In my case: 1/stick with my core values of “right and wrong” while trying to understand both sides of the coin or 2/admit that getting a level of knowledge required to get a good opinion takes too much time investment, and invest that time on something else.
Glad to see the crowd so (re)active today
P-A
Rate this comment:
0 
0
This is really silly.
They won’t let the HIV+ couple have invitro, so that their baby will have a better chance of being HIV-.
This couple could still have sex without a contraceptive and conceive an HIV+ child.
AND Japan wants more children.
Where is the logic?
Rate this comment:
0 
0