I WAS very concerned to read that Dr Kevin Smith, from Abertay University in Dundee, believed that creating genetically modified babies was ethically justifiable and even highly desirable ("Designer baby revolution is less than two years away, research suggests", The Herald, November 19). But what he is suggesting cannot be considered as a form of therapy – no child would be ever be treated with gene therapy in his proposal. In fact, what Dr Smith is recommending is a form of selective eugenics whereby only certain children (with healthy genes) are brought into existence while others (with unhealthy genes) are not.
However, this would completely undermine the concept of absolute equality in value and worth of all children in society. Indeed, by saying that certain disabled children (with a genetic disorder) should not exist, one is also stating that certain disabled existing children (who are alive right now with the same disorder) should not have existed. And no civilised society can ever give such a message.
Of course, some children have very short lives of suffering, and other have very long and successful lives, but how can any society indicate that these children are not absolutely equal in value and in worth?
For a society to remain a civilised, therefore, such selective eugenics procedures should always be rejected.
Dr Calum MacKellar, Director of Research, Scottish Council on Human Bioethics, Edinburgh EH10.
Prince Andrew should be sacked
FOLLOWING Prince Andrew's amnesia-ridden interview he states his intention to carry on regardless with his royal duties. Surely the Palace administrator of these "duties " should counsel him on the suitability of so doing, not merely from his own perspective but that of the Royal Household.
His lack of remorse and contrition by way of association in this shameful affair makes it untenable for him to continue in any royal ambassadorial role.
Allan C Steele, Giffnock.
AM I alone in being astonished about the waste of time on the media about Andrew-Mountbatten-Windsor? Have we nothing better to do but listen to this nonsense?
Hamish Kirk, Isle of Bute.
West Bank danger
THE Trump administration has reversed a decades-old policy on the legality of West Bank settlements, saying it no longer considers them inconsistent with international law. This will allow for Israel to annex Palestinian land without any stricture from its main supporter. However, it will render any two-state solution impracticable for the Palestinians, especially as Israel also wants to annex the Jordan Valley. Palestine will be reduced to a few isolated “Bantustans”, policed by the Israeli army and without rights.
If I were a Palestinian leader, I would insist that Palestinians should now be recognised as citizens of what is fast becoming “Greater Israel”, with the same political, social and economic rights as Israelis. What have they got to lose, and how could the Israeli government deny them that status, on the land they have always lived on? The truth is, if they were to go to the UN and insist on Israeli citizenship today, they might get offered a two-state solution tomorrow.
GR Weir, Ochiltree.
So, thanks
THANKS To Barry Lees (Letters, November 19) for pointing out the maddening misuse of the word "so" in broadcasting and elsewhere. I thought it was just me being a grumpy old git.
John Love Glasgow G5.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel