11.21, 26 January 2010
Is it right to destroy an eight-cell embryo, because it has, in some cases, a minor genetic imperfection? This is the question being asked as the
Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority seek to add a further 24 inherited conditions to its current list of 116, which permit fertility clinics to ‘screen out’ or destroy embryos with such conditions without any specific permission. A clinic’s decision takes into account current medical knowledge, practices and treatment of the condition and the potential age of onset, but is this enough to safeguard embryos from destruction? Is
thalassaemia for example such a severe blood disorder that it would be better to screen out that embryo? This situation throws up a plethora of fairly contentious issues.
We would all like to have ‘genetically healthy’ children and anyone can understand an individual’s decision to want to screen out an embryo carrying a gene known to cause conditions with painful, debilitating symptoms, but what about those conditions, which have only minor ailments? One could argue one’s minor ailments are another’s major, but should we have the right to play god in this way, just because we can? I feel the term ‘playing god’ is somewhat over-used, but in this situation, the fertility clinics are without, it seems, sufficient external guidance deciding exactly what should count as a viable embryo – not wanting to be too dramatic but in essence, who lives and who is prevented from living. My fear is where it will stop? Is it the ‘designer baby’ scenario all over again – choosing blue-eyed babies over brown, one embryo over another? It seems we are aiming for perfection, but what is perfection and who decides? Of course, if we could screen for cancer and one embryo was guaranteed to develop it and another wasn’t, then we would surely want to screen out the one over the other, but for a relatively mild condition? The question is – how can we grade potential condition severity? If a woman only has a finite number of embryos and is desperate for a child – it’s her last chance – a baby with thalassaemia for example is maybe better than no baby at all?
I think decisions of this nature are so much easier when an embryo is simply a few cells that we forget that those few cells could be someone’s son or daughter, they are a potential human being. Screen out for debilitating life-altering conditions, but screen out for a slight imperfection? There needs to be stringent rules and regulations, and permission I think needs to be sought at each stage of the ‘selection process’.
For the
Telegraph’s report on the story, please visit:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/7066390/Clinics-destroying-embryos-with-minor-genetic-conditions.html
Add a comment to this blog posting
Comments are added to the bottom of blog postings. They are moderated and will not be published until approved by the Midwives team. They may be edited.
