Guest guest Posted August 11, 2000 Report Share Posted August 11, 2000 Kristi: I am 30 years old, single, no children (yet). I have dated a lot through the years and would have imagined I'd be married with children by now, but fate has worked otherwise thusfar. I grew up with CMT (discovered at age 15) and also was born with cataracts and had five eye operations as a kid. Even before the CMT, until I was 13, I had coke-bottle glasses that made for a rather difficult childhood... Anyway, provided that I can do so before my late 30's (I don't want to have a child past that age as I think it greatly increases the health risk), at this point, I do very much want to have children. Selfish?? Maybe, but I don't think so. What it comes down to is this: Do I wish that I had not been born? And the answer to that is clearly and definitely NO. Yes, I have had maybe more than my share of difficulties, pain, teasing and limitation, but I've also had some great joys, fun, challenges, friendships and other experiences that I would not want to have missed. I'm glad my parents chose to have me. For me, the main consideration in choosing to have children is how good of a parent I would be. I think their is a nationwide deficit of good parenting and that the parenting role must be taken very seriously. I get along great with kids, have studied child development and family therapy, and have worked in a type of Social Work that is said to be a lot like parenting. I know I can be loving and fun, provide wisdom and guidance, and be both very strict or lenient as necessary; I think these qualities are most important in parenting. I've been very successful in my job over the years and I just know that I would be a good parent; others have said this as well. No, I don't want to subject a child to needless pain and suffering. But there are countless other sources of pain and suffering. Even if you could be guaranteed a child without CMT, nobody could guarantee that they may not develop some other, maybe non-inherited disease, or that they won't suffer horrible injuries in an accident, or that they won't become a victim of a fire or natural disaster, and that they won't experience severe pain. There are many, many health conditions that cause severe pain. Eliminating the risk of CMT, will not eliminate pain (but yes, it may reduce it). And then there's also the non health related argument friends of mine use that choose not to have children: the world is overpopulated, life for children is harder and harder, the crime rates are very high, they may not be able to live at the same standard of living that we do, etc. All of these arguments are valid, but what it comes down to I think is the individual's choice; you know best what is right for you. Moreover, I've also met many people who are perfectly " healthy " but do not have the patience or temperment to be responsible parents, or who are physically, emotionally or otherwise abusive to their children. There are numerous risks children face in addition to inheriting genetic disorders. I feel that I would be a good parent, even if I have some physical limitations, and loving, supportive parenting is a gift that many children are not blessed with; a gift I may even feel duty bound to provide. Maybe I will choose to parent by adoption. But, if I do have biological children, I think that I can provide them with many good genetic traits and genetic gifts, despite the possibility of CMT. Is this a rationalization: maybe. But one could argue that either choice is a rationalization. I don't think there's any right or wrong answer. I definitely respect the feelings of members who have chosen not to have children; their rationale is valid too. But I think that it's important to consider the whole picture, what you can provide as a parent, what your limitations are, the risks, and how you might handle those risks if they were to come into fruition. Just my two cents. Good luck in your decision process. - Marti Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 11, 2000 Report Share Posted August 11, 2000 Well said Marti Sue ----- Original Message ----- From: mmc3737@... egroups Sent: Friday, August 11, 2000 4:56 AM Subject: Re: [] Genetic Question/ Having children... Kristi: I am 30 years old, single, no children (yet). I have dated a lot through the years and would have imagined I'd be married with children by now, but fate has worked otherwise thusfar. I grew up with CMT (discovered at age 15) and also was born with cataracts and had five eye operations as a kid. Even before the CMT, until I was 13, I had coke-bottle glasses that made for a rather difficult childhood... Anyway, provided that I can do so before my late 30's (I don't want to have a child past that age as I think it greatly increases the health risk), at this point, I do very much want to have children. Selfish?? Maybe, but I don't think so. What it comes down to is this: Do I wish that I had not been born? And the answer to that is clearly and definitely NO. Yes, I have had maybe more than my share of difficulties, pain, teasing and limitation, but I've also had some great joys, fun, challenges, friendships and other experiences that I would not want to have missed. I'm glad my parents chose to have me. For me, the main consideration in choosing to have children is how good of a parent I would be. I think their is a nationwide deficit of good parenting and that the parenting role must be taken very seriously. I get along great with kids, have studied child development and family therapy, and have worked in a type of Social Work that is said to be a lot like parenting. I know I can be loving and fun, provide wisdom and guidance, and be both very strict or lenient as necessary; I think these qualities are most important in parenting. I've been very successful in my job over the years and I just know that I would be a good parent; others have said this as well. No, I don't want to subject a child to needless pain and suffering. But there are countless other sources of pain and suffering. Even if you could be guaranteed a child without CMT, nobody could guarantee that they may not develop some other, maybe non-inherited disease, or that they won't suffer horrible injuries in an accident, or that they won't become a victim of a fire or natural disaster, and that they won't experience severe pain. There are many, many health conditions that cause severe pain. Eliminating the risk of CMT, will not eliminate pain (but yes, it may reduce it). And then there's also the non health related argument friends of mine use that choose not to have children: the world is overpopulated, life for children is harder and harder, the crime rates are very high, they may not be able to live at the same standard of living that we do, etc. All of these arguments are valid, but what it comes down to I think is the individual's choice; you know best what is right for you. Moreover, I've also met many people who are perfectly " healthy " but do not have the patience or temperment to be responsible parents, or who are physically, emotionally or otherwise abusive to their children. There are numerous risks children face in addition to inheriting genetic disorders. I feel that I would be a good parent, even if I have some physical limitations, and loving, supportive parenting is a gift that many children are not blessed with; a gift I may even feel duty bound to provide. Maybe I will choose to parent by adoption. But, if I do have biological children, I think that I can provide them with many good genetic traits and genetic gifts, despite the possibility of CMT. Is this a rationalization: maybe. But one could argue that either choice is a rationalization. I don't think there's any right or wrong answer. I definitely respect the feelings of members who have chosen not to have children; their rationale is valid too. But I think that it's important to consider the whole picture, what you can provide as a parent, what your limitations are, the risks, and how you might handle those risks if they were to come into fruition. Just my two cents. Good luck in your decision process. - Marti ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 11, 2000 Report Share Posted August 11, 2000 In a message dated 8/11/2000 9:05:36 AM US Eastern Standard Time, PawPrint74@... writes: << My question, if I get tested and I don't have it, then there is no chance of me giving this to my child, correct? Is that correct? Forgive me for being so ignorant in this subject, but I'm very curious. >> This is what I was told by the doctors at Mayo Clinic. You have to have CMT to pass it on. You could not tell by my parents that they had CMT. My mother's sister had an EMG and the doctor said she had it. This concluded that I must have gotten it from my mother. My mother has a VERY mild form of it. No symptoms to really speak of. She was never tested for it. My father was clumsy most of his life and this seem to mark the idea that perhaps he had a mild case also. He is deceased and no way to confirm this. I was told because of my severity, that I possibly have a double gene inheritance. I was also told 50/50 chance on passing on to my children. From IN. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 11, 2000 Report Share Posted August 11, 2000 Hi, Marti. Thank you for taking the time out to respond to my questions. I think you did a wonderful job at getting your point across. There's a lot of things to think about before deciding to have children, and it's not just passing the CMT gene to them. You are very right about that. I still have one question though that is directly related to this subject. I was doing some research last night about genetics, and I wish I still had the web site up so I could quote it directly, but it said something to the effect that this disease must be inherited by one parent. Then it said, this means that one parent must have this disease. Then it said, if one parent has this disease, there is a 50 percent chance of giving it to the child, boy or girl. My question, if I get tested and I don't have it, then there is no chance of me giving this to my child, correct? Is that correct? Forgive me for being so ignorant in this subject, but I'm very curious. What Marti said made a lot of sense, and it has given me a lot to think about. Thank you. Kristi > Well said Marti > Sue > ----- Original Message ----- > From: mmc3737@a... > egroups > Sent: Friday, August 11, 2000 4:56 AM > Subject: Re: [] Genetic Question/ Having children... > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 11, 2000 Report Share Posted August 11, 2000 In a message dated 8/11/2000 7:05:52 AM Pacific Daylight Time, PawPrint74@... writes: << My question, if I get tested and I don't have it, then there is no chance of me giving this to my child, correct? Is that correct? Forgive me for being so ignorant in this subject, but I'm very curious. What Marti said made a lot of sense, and it has given me a lot to think about. Thank you. Kristi >> I was told at Childrens hospital that if you don't have the CMT gene then you don't pass it. That it dosen't skip generations. You may think it has skipped a generation because a parent may have had no signs of CMT. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 12, 2000 Report Share Posted August 12, 2000 Marti... I agree! I am 35, and if I had the chance, I would have loved to have had children...who knows?...I might eventually if the circumstances are right. Kathy in Brooklyn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 13, 2000 Report Share Posted August 13, 2000 Kristi, Lamar here, You asked, I still have one question though that is directly related to this subject. I was doing some research last night about genetics, and I wish I still had the web site up so I could quote it directly, but it said something to the effect that this disease must be inherited by one parent. Then it said, this means that one parent must have this disease. Then it said, if one parent has this disease, there is a 50 percent chance of giving it to the child, boy or girl. My question, if I get tested and I don't have it, then there is no chance of me giving this to my child, correct? Is that correct? Forgive me for being so ignorant in this subject, but I'm very curious. There is a possibility of a " spontaneous mutation " where neither parent has CMT, but if you do not have CMT this incidence would be no higher than for anyone else without it. You can assume that for all practical purposes that if you do not have a CMT gene you will not pass it on. Complete testing would include all available genetic tests, NCV and possibly EMG. Sometimes a muscle and nerve biopsy is required to totally rule out or confirm Type 2, but it is usually done by NCV, family history, and symptomology. > Well said Marti > Sue > ----- Original Message ----- > From: mmc3737@a... > egroups > Sent: Friday, August 11, 2000 4:56 AM > Subject: Re: [] Genetic Question/ Having children... > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.