Per this article linked to from Drudge, scientists have “cured” an artificially-created Down Syndrome-like condition in mice, which is extraordinary. Apparently, DS people have a brain that’s simply smaller than an average brain, and the procedure in question increased brain growth in newborn baby mice. The scientists are hesitant to say that htis could be replicated in human newborns, and cite the risk of brain tumors (though the article doesn’t indicate whether the mice experienced this side effect or whether the physiology is so different that lack of tumors in mice doesn’t tell anything about the risk for humans).
The reaction in these instapundit comments is, basically, “you’d have to be a fool not to support a cure” but it’s actually not a simple issue, given that any such treatment is unlikely to be without risks.
What if?
What if, upon receiving a prenatal diagnosis of Down Syndrome, a mother had the option to receive this treatment, with a 10%? 20%? or more? chance of a brain tumor or other deadly risk? I suppose that if such a woman saw the alternative as abortion, she might be perfectly happy with this risk — or maybe not, if an aborted baby was preferable to an X% chance of a terminally-ill newborn, or if the remaining effects of Down Syndrome (the characteristic facial features, the low muscle tone, etc.) were unaccepatble, or even even eliminating the severe retardation but leaving a below-average intelligence was grounds for this mother for an abortion?
And, for the case of a newborn, or a mother who isn’t considering abortion in the first place, how do you balance the risk? X% chance of a brain tumor vs. guaranteed unmitigated Down Syndrome?
Of course, this is just cause for speculation at this point — and one hopes that the tumor risk is small or can be mitigated. But interesting food for thought!
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In