Log in to WRAL.com with one click using your favorite social network:
OR
Log in using your WRAL.com account:



Wrong email/password combination.

Forgot password?

Register with WRAL.com using your favorite social network:
OR
Register for a WRAL.com account using our web form.

Login Options

3:44 a.m. • 2-7-12

Weather Forecast for Raleigh

  • Today: Partly Cloudy.
    • Hi: 60° F
  • Wed: Mostly Cloudy.
    • Hi: 58° F
  • Thu: Partly Cloudy.
    • Hi: 54° F

Other Locations

> 7 Day Forecast

Doppler Image

Marketplace Links

Social Links

Main Menu

Pursuit of healthy child created moral dilemma for couple


e-mail print friendly
Blaine and Joanne Reese, used genetic screening
Blaine and Joanne Reese, used genetic screening

A few years ago, Joanne and Blaine Reese wondered if they could ever have healthy children.

Their first child, Joseph, was diagnosed with spinal muscular atrophy six weeks after he was born in 2006. The genetic disorder causes progressive degeneration and weakness of muscles, including those used in breathing and eating, and is fatal.

Joseph died when he was 5 months old.

The Reeses worried that, if they had another child, it would have a one-in-four chance of carrying the spinal muscular atrophy gene.

The couple went to Carolina Conceptions, a fertility clinic in Raleigh, for in vitro fertilization and a procedure called pre-implantation genetic diagnosis, or PGD.

PGD biopsies a 3-day-old embryo to determine if it carries genetic markers for spinal muscular atrophy or other inherited illnesses, Dr. Grace Couchman said.

"A very tiny, little laser hole is made in the embryo. A single cell is taken out, and those single cells are sent for genetic analysis," Couchman said. "We will be able to find out which of the embryos are actually healthy – the embryos that do not carry the affected genetic disorder."

The Reeses struggled with the decision to use the genetic test.

"How far is too far?" Blaine Reese said, noting that he and his wife consulted their pastor.

"He said, 'You're not asking for a 6-foot-3 boy with blue eyes and blond hair who's going to run the 40 (meters) in four seconds. You're asking for a healthy child,'" he said.

Still, Dr. Jacques Mistrot, a retired cardiac surgeon who teaches bio-ethics through the Catholic Diocese of Raleigh, said the procedure raises questions about the embryos that are found to have a genetic disorder.

"I pray that the day will come with this technology that we'll be able to eliminate the defective gene and not the defective child," Mistrot said. "To get that normal child ... is a wonderful end, but the means have to be examined."

More than 500,000 human embryos are in frozen storage in the U.S. Most are reserved for possible use in future pregnancies, and President Barack Obama last year lifted restrictions on government funding for stem cell research using donated embryos.

Parents decide the fate of all embryos, including those found to have genetic defects.

Using PGD, the Reeses have gotten two healthy children, 2-year-old Haley and 3½-month-old Ross.

"We still have four embryos that we have frozen," Joanne Reese said. "We have not ruled out having more children, but right now, we're pretty happy having two healthy children."

RELATED TOPICS: Barack Obama, Stem Cell Research, Raleigh

e-mail print friendly

37 Comments


WRAL.com welcomes your comments on this story. All comments are moderated prior to publication based on our posting guidelines. Please review them prior to posting and if your message is not approved.

View Comments VIEW ALL 37 COMMENTS

This story is closed for comments. Comments on WRAL.com news stories are accepted and moderated between the hours of 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. Monday through Friday.

Latest Comments
Nikka-why would you say that it is selfish for this couple to have more CHILDREN?

peppercorns... I'm shocked by your selfish and serious lack of compassion for life. In your view, if a human does not meet YOUR standards of a life worth living, if a person is somehow suffering, if a person does not produce something tangible for society, and that person in some way causes the parents grief, your solution is that they should be killed. Newsflash, life is NOT about the avoidance of pain. Love transcends suffering, and all life is valuable. Thankfully I'm pretty sure most humans do not share your beliefs. Next time you are at Walmart, pick yourself up a soul.

If the baby would be have life of suffering, pain and dependence on other people - for assistance, money and total care, and a very short life span...then why bother? So the parents can say how much they sacrificed and be martyrs? What is the benefit to the child? to society? There is no reward for taking care of something that was never supposed to be. If there is hope, then go forward with having the child, but with no hope or future, NO! If just becomes a selfish act so you can tell all your friends how wonderful you are for taking care of a child that lived only afew month. YOU let that poor infant suffer for six month???!!! and you say it was worth it! FOR WHO????????? MEP you said your friends cherished everyday they had with the child...and that's nice, but did it really help the child in any way or just get them sympathy?

babbleon... and there is where we disagree. An embryo is a created human being. The embryo has both parental aspects, the egg and sperm combined. Choosing to create it, then not implanting it equates abortion to me. Hopefully you read my previous posts regarding my cousin. To "spare" her mother the pain, would have denied her mother the love, joy, and yes struggles for the past 47 years. To truly "spare" a parent the pain from loss, you must first deny them what they want, then they can never lose it. But I do understand your point. My daughter could die any day from her disorder... and yet I would not trade or spare myself of anything in exchange for whatever time I get with her in this life.

@mep: I am glad your cousin has a good life, with lots of good care. But if you had to choose between two embryos, and you knew one was much more likely to live a short, painful life than the other, would you really choose to implant the embryo that's 99% sure to die within a year of being born? Wouldn't that then be killing the other embryo?

Abortion is NOT an issue in this case. It's a question of which embryo to implant. You can't implant them all. I think survivability is an ethical basis for making the decision.

IVF Drs use that anyway - they prioritize embryos by how vigorously their cells are dividing. Post-birth survivability is an ethical criteria as well.

View Comments VIEW ALL 37 COMMENTS
advertisement