Talk:Preimplantation genetic diagnosis/Archive 1

Costs of PGD
- data about the costs of PGD (several thousand US-Dollar)

PCR is much more expensive and time intensive than FISH.


 * http://www.doctorslounge.com/fertility/articles/pgd/pgd_technique/index.htm (already cited) puts it at around $20,000 US. Jɪmp 21:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

RCC and me.
The Pope's view on this matter in specific is not notable enough for inclusion in this article, since it's part of his overall objection to a large variety of medical technologies, which is documented all over the place. It does not belong here, and if you try to insert it, I will remove it. Moreover, I will bring in the liberal editors from Abortion to ensure that any edit-warring by you is futile. Any questions? Spotfixer (talk) 00:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This is an encyclopedia, not some partisan message board. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis is a contentious issue, as is indicated by the Ethical issues section.  The Pope is the spiritual leader of over 1 billion people, if he, or the leader of another religious group has made a solid, verifiable pronouncement on the matter it warrants a line or two of inclusion.  I'd love to include more editors in this discussion but liberal, conservative or whatever I'm pretty sure they'll agree that the sourced material in question merits inclusion. - Schrandit (talk) 00:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

As I've explained, the RCC stance against medical technology is covered in depth elsewhere. It does not need to be repeated here so as to bloat and bias the article. You've said nothing that in any way supports the inclusion of this text, so if you start an edit war, it will be a losing one. Spotfixer (talk) 00:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * For you to characterize the Roman Catholic Church as having a "stance against medical technology" is rather childish. I don't really know how mentioning the Pope's statement in a neutral fashion would bloat or bias the article.  The content is relevant, it is verifiable, it is not original research, it is presented in a neutral manner and as such it meets the Wikipedia criteria for inclusion and your personal beliefs aside, that is what matters. - Schrandit (talk) 01:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Repeating your refuted arguments is a waste of time. Somehow, the world will have to live without the constant mention of the Pope's irrelevant opinion on matters that will never personally concern him. Spotfixer (talk) 01:48, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Neither one of us is going to change the others' mind so I've asked for a third opinion, want to just leave this question in other folk's hands? - Schrandit (talk) 02:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

You are guilty of editing against consensus and edit-warring. 69.121.221.174 (talk) 02:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Here's a third opinion. The ethical and moral issues surrounding PGD are relevant to this article. The Pope's opinion is relevant if it specifically regards this procedure. That doesn't mean you have to agree with him. It just means that the ethical and moral issue exists and it should be presented honestly by this article.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 02:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the Pope has an opinion about everything, and there is no place for it in each and every article. I was recently involved with a banned and apparently retired user named User:Zahd who likewise kept trying to insert Papal edicts in every article, and there was a strong consensus to avoid this practice.  I am going to continue to follow this consensus. Spotfixer (talk) 02:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you direct us to a consensus to exclude mention of the Pope on Wikipedia articles? - Schrandit (talk) 02:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That's yet another dishonest characterization. What I'm arguing for is neutrality instead of a Catholic POV.  This issue has come up before (1,2,3) Spotfixer (talk) 02:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * How is stating the Pope's position a violation of NPOV? Is the article Legitimacy of the 2003 invasion of Iraq violating NPOV by mentioning the Pope?  The cases you point to gave undue weight to Catholicism, the sourced material being discussed does not. - Schrandit (talk) 03:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It violates WP:NPOV because it gives WP:UNDUE weight to one person's view. Papal hostility towards gynecology is well documented in appropriate articles, so it doesn't merit mention here.
 * Oh, and the name is Richard, so stop changing it. Spotfixer (talk) 04:50, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Did you read WP:UNDUE? Is merely mentioning the position of the Catholic Church crushing the view of the opposition?  Surely you will not argue that the position of the world's largest religion is insignificant.  Your description of "Papal hostility towards gynecology" is laughable, furthermore no consensus has developed on this page, your revision of the article was premature. - Schrandit (talk) 04:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I was orginally revoked as an editor and I feel that it is appropriate to expose Church views on bioethics, since religion is a major, major player in the field of ethics and general morality, especially at the Roman Academy of Bioethics. However, if it appears to be difficult to list many or all of the aforesaid views in corresponding articles, I would recommend creating an article on Donum Vitae and Dignitas Personae, which briefly contain and summarize all of the bioethical views formally advocated by Magisterial Christianity. 69.157.229.153 (talk) 20:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I fully agree that these two items deserve their own articles. I don't have any interest in hiding the RCC's views on medical ethics, I just don't see any reason why they need to be endlessly repeated in each and every article. Spotfixer (talk) 23:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Endlessly is a bit of the stretch. This is an issue of moral weight, we have included a section on ethical issues surrounding it.  The Catholic Church, and religion in general has a tremendous impact on morality and ethics.  An editor has provided us with a sourced statement written in neutral language by the leader of the largest religion in the world that touches upon the ethics of the subject.  Under Wikipedia guidelines this merits inclusion.  Can anyone produce a firm reason as to why it should be included? - Schrandit (talk) 11:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The RCC believes there are strong negative consequences from separating the creation of human life from marital intercourse. It does not have objections specifically to pre-natal diagnostic tests like PGD; if PGD could be done in vivo to provide information to new parents, the RCC would be unlikely to object.  The RCC's basic objection is not to PGD itself, but to the IVF that proceeds it.  I've added a see-also link to the "religious objections" section in the IVF article; I believe that's all that's relevant to this article regarding the RCC position. LyrlTalk C 13:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Religious views
As a reader considering this procedure, I was very interested in reading the section regarding religious views on this topic. However, I was disappointed to see that there wasn't one due to some conflict in this area. Please resolve your conflict so that those of us who are interested in reading this portion of the article may obtain the information desired. (PS I prefer to find all of my info in one place rather than searching the net for hours). Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lindak69 (talk • contribs) 02:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If you want religious views, I recommend that you speak to your priest/rabbi/imam or whatever. Or try Churchopedia. Spotfixer (talk) 03:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That's hardly a fair comment, and borders on rude. If this is a controversial topic, the article should address that controversy, just like any other article in Wikipedia. We're an encyclopedia after all - reflecting "the sum of human knowledge", not just part of it. Brad 03:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's entirely fair. This person's preferences are not sufficient reason to bias an article. Spotfixer (talk) 03:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * An article that doesn't mention a controversy is inherently biased. If you want to leave out treatment of a controversy, you need to prove that there is no controversy or that it hasn't been covered by reliable sources. Brad 03:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I haven't seen enough content suggested for a "religious views" section to justify splitting off from the "ethics" section. Certainly the ethics section could be improved. The single sentence over which there is conflict is not relevant to this article - it's about IVF and all IVF-related procedures, not about prenatal diagnostic tests or PGD in particular. There is a prominent link to the "religious views" section in the IVF article for those who are interested, such as Lindak69. LyrlTalk C 03:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with a link to an article covering religious views on reproduction. That would be appropriate in its scope. Spotfixer (talk) 03:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If there is controversy specific to this topic it should be covered here. If it falls under the umbrella of in vitro fertilization then that coverage is sufficient, and it should probably be explicitly linked to here. I'm not familiar enough with the topic to tell. Regardless, your comment above to the newcomer would have been more helpful if you'd pointed her to such an article. Brad 04:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I pointed her to her church. The sort of people who actually care what a church says about a topic typically have access to a church to ask first-hand. Spotfixer (talk) 04:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The controversy regarding PGD differs greatly from IVF. In the eyes of the Church PGD is a mortal sin (far greater) and tantamount to murder.  I'm sure other religions have their views on the practice but I cannot say I know them off hand.  If folks think the religious views section would be better off compacted into the ethics section I think that's perfectly reasonable. - Schrandit (talk) 12:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Discarding embryos is tantamount to murder in the eyes of the RCC. The PGD test itself is not considered sinful.  Does that make sense? LyrlTalk C 17:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

news
check this story out —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.45.201.230 (talk) 04:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Teaching the controversy.
According to Judaism, pork isn't kosher. Good to know. Now, if we were to remove that fact from the article, it would be censorship. And since a few religions prohibit pork, we likewise have to mention this in that article, without focusing on one religion to the exclusion of all others.

But how about bacon? Should that article have a duplicate of the "religious prohibitions" sections from pork? Since bacon is a kind of pork, this adds no real content. And since these prohibitions are on all types of pork and bacon is a type of pork, they necessarily forbid bacon. A trite syllogism that does not deserve space in an article. Worse, focusing only on the Jewish prohibition while ignoring the Islamic one (much less the more pork-tolerant attitudes of other religions) would be a form of bias.

Yet this is precisely what a doctrinaire Catholic named Schrandit is aiming for. Schrandit is trying to insert a mention of the Catholic prohibition against PGD, even though it's just an obvious consequence of the general RCC prohibition against abortion. And he's intentionally omitting mention of all the other religions that have their own views about PGD.

This is little different from an orthodox Jew adding "Judaism forbids pork" to bacon, chitterlings and every other porcine food product. For this reason, I will continue to remove any attempt by Schrandit, or other religious extremists, to put their religious views at the forefront of articles where they are irrelevant. Spotfixer (talk) 03:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, no. If you check the edit history I wasn't the editor to add the religious views section, I merely readded it after you deleted it under the edit summary of "Same as before".  No one has come forward to add the views of other religions and I certainly have not removed the views of religions not my own.  I must say with all this controversy I will likely give seek out and include other religious views.
 * This practice is very different than regular abortion with different moral factors coming into play. I would remind you these are not merely my religious view but rather, the views of the more than 1 billion Catholics worldwide. - Schrandit (talk) 12:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * They're the view of the Pope. The people of the church are not robots. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, the wording of that statement sounded like a Catholic press release. Reworded to make it more neutral. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Not to get all existential but its not like one is born Catholic, if a person disagrees with the Church no one forces them to stay. To be Catholic is to look at the teaching of the Church and go "yeah, I believe that".
 * Also, per your revised wording - the phrase "on the grounds that it involves the destruction of human life." sounds to me like we are definitively stating that the death of an unborn human is the destruction of human life. While I wholeheartedly agree with that notion I must concede that it is a contested one and as such I feel that something along the lines of "the Catholic Church has stated that it involves the destruction of human life" or "the Catholic Church believes that it involves the destruction of human life" would be more appropriate. - Schrandit (talk) 13:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, lots of people are "born Catholic", or whatever religion. I like "the Catholic Church believes that it involves the destruction of human life" and will put it that way in the article. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * As Dawkins is fond of pointing out, nobody is born Catholic, much many children are indoctrinated in this and other belief systems when they are too young to defend themselves. To speak of an infant as Catholic is about as meaningful as calling one a Republican.
 * In any case, I have a quibble about the change you made because, as Lyrl has pointed out, the specific objection is not about the testing, but rather the destruction of a fertilized egg. In fact, this objection is not solely a matter of Catholicism or any other religion, but rather opposition to (what they see as) abortion. Spotfixer (talk) 03:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Look at the ethic section and other things referenced in the article. I don't think anyone objects to the test but everyone knows what comes of the test. - Schrandit (talk) 04:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

(I'm breaking indent here because it's getting too deep.)

Yes, the bacon test leads to WP:NPOV articles lacking WP:UNDUE weight. The article, as of my last edit, did not violate the bacon test. For example, it didn't spend a paragraph reminding us archly that the Amish reject PGD. Spotfixer (talk) 17:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, what is the "bacon test" and where is it in Wikipedia guidelines? - Schrandit (talk) 00:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sure you know already that the bacon test refers to this, and you also know that it comes from our consensus on how to treat the topic of religious objections in articles that are not primarily about those objections or even their main target. So you understand that mentioning the Catholic church's objections to PGD would violate WP:UNDUE.  Glad that's settled. Spotfixer (talk) 00:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, so just so we're clear you are unhappy because you think this article failed a test that you made up. You are the only editor on this page who has advocated the total removal of this section where others have voiced a desire to keep it and I am far from convinced that this failed WP:UNDUE. - Schrandit (talk)


 * Wow, that's completely inaccurate. The test is a logical application of our consensus for pork/bacon/Kosher, and it's been endorsed by multiple editors, even among those who supported my block.  It appears that you have no counterargument but you still don't want to follow WP:CONSENSUS so you're pretending that it's just my weird idea.  Maybe I'm wrong, but if you can't address my argument on its merits, I can only accept your concession. Spotfixer (talk) 00:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, where have other editors endorsed your test? You speak of consensus?  I went out of my way to obtain a third opinion and if you read above the consensus was to keep the material in question. - Schrandit (talk) 01:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)

When you can address the argument, do let me know. In the meantime, I'm really not responsible for helping you do your research. Spotfixer (talk) 01:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Madam, you claim a consensus that does not exist, you speak of a bacon test, you evoke WP:UNDUE without reading it. This encyclopedia is built of rules and I don't think I'm out of place for saying you seem to be disregarding them. - Schrandit (talk) 01:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It appears that you have no refutation, so the issue is dead. Spotfixer (talk) 02:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I do have consensus on my side though so I feel I am justified in re-introducing the statement. I'll ask for another third opinion just to get some other editor's thoughts on the issue. - Schrandit (talk) 19:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Here's a third opinion from an editor that's new to the page. The Roman Catholic Church has a position that prohibits IVF. The position does not distinguish PGD from IVF. Therefore, the Church's position is appropriate to document in the IVF article, where it is documented, but should not be duplicated here. The present link to the appropriate section of the IVF article is sufficient.Warren Dew (talk) 06:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The Church views IVF and PGD as different things, opposes them for different reasons and views them on two different levels of immorality. The Catholic Church also isn't the only religion opposed to PGD. - Schrandit (talk) 08:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Merge sections proposal
The current sections "PGD and Society", "Ethical issues", and "Religious objections" all cover the same topic. In addition, the "Religious objections" section contains only one sentence: per Layout, Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading. Would there be any objections to merging these three sections? I offer the title of "Ethical, religious, and legal objections" but am open to other title suggestions. LyrlTalk C 17:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll probably look up what a few other religions have to say on the topic. I wouldn't mind a merger, I think later on it might be justifiable to separate the Religious objections and the Ethical issues sections.  Looking at the PGD and Society section it seems as though that was meant to give rise to a view as to the legal aspect of the procedure but I'm not sure of that or if enough is known of the legal aspect to justify a section. - Schrandit (talk) 17:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * They are, in essence, pretty much the same topic. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Since the religious objections section got shortened down to two sentences and still failed the bacon test, I went ahead and merged it. The issue is covered thoroughly (and impartially) in the ethical issue ssection, which also links to In vitro fertilisation.  There is no purpose left to the religious objections section except to repeat the fact that there are ethical issues and to single out Catholicism for special treatment, in violation of WP:UNDUE.
 * Baseball Bugs, Lyrl and I all seem to agree that "ethical issues" and "religious" objections are the same topic, which means we support a merge. Your dissenting opinion is noted, but does not affect the consensus.  Please do no revert to the obsolete version or I will be forced to immediately report you on WP:ANI.  This is your only notice. Spotfixer (talk) 04:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well if you look at the second comment it this section you'll see that I favored a merge as well, however, deletion of the relevant section can hardly qualify as a merge. - Schrandit (talk) 05:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There was nothing left to merge; the first sentence was redundant and the second was WP:UNDUE weight. What, in specific, would you add to the "Ethical issues" section? Spotfixer (talk) 05:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Why was the first sentence redundant? I don't see it anywhere else.  What makes you think the rest was falls under WP:UNDUE?  Surely you're not going to content that Catholicism is a fringe viewpoint. - Schrandit (talk) 00:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you don't expect me to repeat myself. Spotfixer (talk) 00:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no way to say this without accusing you of not reading WP:UNDUE, so yeah, I did read WP:UNDUE and I don't think your removal is justified by it. Could you show me what part of WP:UNDUE you think was violated by it? - Schrandit (talk) 00:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've addressed this in the bacon argument, which remains unrefuted. Spotfixer (talk) 00:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the "PGD and Society" section addresses some things that are not ethical issues, and might better be left alone. I deleted the religion section based on the previous discussion section.  If someone comes up with new information about religious distinctions between IVF and PGD - as opposed to just repetition - then I do agree that new information could go in the Ethics section, rather than in a section of its own.Warren Dew (talk) 07:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that it's redundant, so I support your deletion. Spotfixer (talk) 00:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Leading researcher Verlinsky died
One of the "giants in the field," Yury Verlinsky, has recently died. I started a bio on his life which might have details worth including in this article, should anyone care to link them. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Discrimination against homosexuals
In 2003, there was a debate article published in a reproductive medicine magazine which argued that parents should have the right to choose the sexual orientation of their children if subsequent genetic screening were to be developed on the matter. Many bioethicists have argued that this could lead to unintended discrimination against homosexuals however, because many parents would likely choose to terminate their embryo if they had scientific evidence that it were genetically pre-disposed towards homosexuality. This should probably be included into the current entry somehow, along with appropriate sources of course. ADM (talk) 19:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Obsolete studies?
With the update of the Preimplantation genetic diagnosis from the recent systematic review and meta-analysis of existing randomized controlled trials, I think the following bulk of text from previous individual studies (far from always of optimal quality) in the box below are rather obsolete and unnecessary. Still, if anyone finds a piece in here that still deserves inclusion in the article, feel free to return it.

-Mikael Häggström (talk) 16:45, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Germany
In July 2011, German Bundestag allowed Preimplantation genetic diagnosis.
 * Spiegel:Bundestag erlaubt Gentests bei Embryos (german) 92.252.123.49 (talk) 14:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how to do these edits myself, but:
This sentence needs editing for clarity, and a period at the end:

The Jewish Orthodox religion believes the repair of genetics is okay, but they do not support making a child that is genetically fashioned[35]

Also, has the use of the pronoun "they" in the first section--to describe embryos--been discussed? Is it intentional here? "They" may avoid the biased characterization inherent in "it," "he," or "she"; nonetheless, it is definitely not grammatical. 173.73.129.205 (talk) 00:56, 14 March 2013 (UTC)SAH

Misleading (wrong) statistic
'Three percent of PGD cases in the US in 2006 were used to select an embryo for the presence of a disability' Following up the link to the paper referred to (http://biopsychiatry.com/misc/genetic-defects.html) indicates that the 3% actually relates to the percentage of American clinics offering PDG which 'reported having intentionally used P.G.D. “to select an embryo for the presence of a disability.”' That is, 3% of clinics had selected for disability at least once, but possibly only once. That would point to a much smaller percentage of all PDG cases. 194.39.218.10 (talk) 08:57, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

unsourced Mexico
This was added today and is unsourced; moving here til it can be sourced, per VERIFY

Mexico does not have a policy specifically pertaining to PGD. The General Health Law, which covers assisted reproductive technology (ART), does not address PGD. It is performed at fertility clinics at the discretion of the clinicians who follow their professional association guidelines and by request of the intended parent(s).
 * Mexico

- Jytdog (talk) 23:22, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

How many PGDs have been done until now?
It would be useful to provide some information in the article about the following: - data about how often it has been applied worldwide until now. To my knowledge until 2002 it has been applied only around 2000 - 5000 times totally. So it seems to be still very much experimental. However, I do not have to recent number.

I agree these are important numbers to offer to the public. Here is my take: This reference noted European-only numbers of 10,824 from 2002-12 (https://www.bmj.com/content/345/bmj.e5908). If we then consider that the numbers have been increasing annually for both IVF and PGD, and we know the U.S. market in 2016 had about 58k IVF cycles that use some form of PGD and/or PGS (see: https://nccd.cdc.gov/drh_art/rdPage.aspx?rdReport=DRH_ART.ClinicInfo&rdRequestForward=True&ClinicId=9999&ShowNational=1), then even if PGD encompassed just 10% of those cases (far lower than the 2012 European number), it means ~5k annually in the U.S. alone. Europe has always been equal or larger than the U.S. in IVF, so it is safe to assume ~10k PGD cycles annually today. We can't model exact historical numbers off this, but I think citing these sources gives us enough confidence to say that "there have been tens of thousands of IVF cycles utilizing PGD, in each of the US and EU." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leecoo4 (talk • contribs) 18:00, 22 December 2018 (UTC)