Ethical Issues of Reproductive Technologies: Designer Babies, Sex ...
Ethical Issues of Reproductive Technologies: Designer Babies, Sex ... Ethical Issues of Reproductive Technologies: Designer Babies, Sex ...
other characteristics is inadequate. [10] Through the use of careful regulations PGD could be used for some reasons and not for others, thereby avoiding a ‘slide down the slope’. [10] One form of ‘designing babies’ I have not yet considered is that of using PGD in conjunction with tissue typing to select an embryo for implantation that will go on to become a ‘saviour sibling’; a brother or sister capable of donating lifesaving tissue to an existing child. [10] An argument particular to this technique is that saviour siblings would be treated as mere commodities, not wanted for their own sake, but for some other purpose. [10] In the words of Kant’s famous dictum, “Never use people as means but always treat them as a end”. [7] However, in reality many children are born for a purpose: as a companion to a sibling, to ‘pass on the family name’, or bring happiness to the parents. Therefore, providing parents love their child, it is argued there is no harm in that child benefiting another. [7] Having discussed these issues I feel that using PGD is something that should not be done without careful consideration on behalf of the parents involved. Choosing which embryo to implant and which to discard is not an easy choice, nor should it ever be. [11] Nonetheless, in my opinion any technology that can reduce pain and suffering is one to be considered, be that by preventing a life of suffering or by easing the anguish of an existing child. By the implementation of regulations I believe this technology could be used for good, and any trivialisation of the technique to ‘design babies’ for cosmetic traits could be prevented. Sex Selection Another issue to consider is that of sex selection. The two main techniques used for this are, again, PGD or alternatively, sperm sorting. The HFEA’s recommendation is that sex selection should only be available “in cases in which there is a clear and overriding medical justification”, referring to the avoidance of sex-linked genetic conditions such as Tay-Sachs. [12] The British Medical Association is concurrent with this. [13] The main focus of ethical objections to this technique are linked 90
with sex selection for non-medical reasons, with there being less debate over the ethical validity of sex selection when its aim is to prevent the transmission of sex-linked disease. [14] Taking this into account, and as I have already discussed the use of PGD to avoid genetic diseases, we are presented with questions such as: if a couple have two sons and desire a daughter, should they be allowed to employ this technology? [15] The case for permitting sex selection for non-medical reasons is that it serves the desires of couples who have strong preferences regarding the gender of their offspring, some of whom feel so strongly they may resort to abortion or choose not to procreate unless the gender of their future baby can be determined. [16] Then again, one can question whether desire alone justifies acceptance of their preference, especially when it is a preference which is often self-imposed. [16] One suggested argument against the use of this technology in this way is that it constitutes an inappropriate use of medical resources. However, according to the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) preconception gender selection (i.e. sperm separation followed by artificial insemination) is unlikely to drain substantial resources from the medical system. [15] Another ethical issue surrounding sex selection is that of gender discrimination and, furthermore, that offspring produced will be expected to act in certain gender specific ways. [15] Some argue that although the motivations for desiring a child of a particular sex vary, other than in the case of preventing a sex-linked disease, there are no nonsexist reasons for pre-selecting sex. [15] Furthermore, there is the worry that sex-selection will lead to adverse social consequences due to an unbalanced sex ratio. It is likely though that only a small percentage of the population would request sex selection, therefore the impact on the sex ratio would be minimal. [1] Alternatively, if sex selection were to become very popular, laws could be introduced requiring providers to select both genders in equal numbers thereby avoiding a shift in the sex ratio. Although it could then be argued that the institution of laws in this way would result in a decrease in procreative liberty and defy the purpose of the procedure! [15] An alternative argument against sex 91
- Page 1 and 2: Ethical Issues of Reproductive Tech
- Page 3: abnormalities such as Down’s Synd
- Page 7 and 8: also be used to evade transmission
- Page 9 and 10: References [1] Strong C. Ethics in
other characteristics is inadequate. [10] Through the use <strong>of</strong> careful<br />
regulations PGD could be used for some reasons and not for others,<br />
thereby avoiding a ‘slide down the slope’. [10] One form <strong>of</strong> ‘designing<br />
babies’ I have not yet considered is that <strong>of</strong> using PGD in conjunction with<br />
tissue typing to select an embryo for implantation that will go on to<br />
become a ‘saviour sibling’; a brother or sister capable <strong>of</strong> donating lifesaving<br />
tissue to an existing child. [10] An argument particular to this<br />
technique is that saviour siblings would be treated as mere commodities,<br />
not wanted for their own sake, but for some other purpose. [10] In the<br />
words <strong>of</strong> Kant’s famous dictum, “Never use people as means but always<br />
treat them as a end”. [7] However, in reality many children are born for a<br />
purpose: as a companion to a sibling, to ‘pass on the family name’, or<br />
bring happiness to the parents. Therefore, providing parents love their<br />
child, it is argued there is no harm in that child benefiting another. [7]<br />
Having discussed these issues I feel that using PGD is something that<br />
should not be done without careful consideration on behalf <strong>of</strong> the parents<br />
involved. Choosing which embryo to implant and which to discard is not<br />
an easy choice, nor should it ever be. [11] Nonetheless, in my opinion any<br />
technology that can reduce pain and suffering is one to be considered,<br />
be that by preventing a life <strong>of</strong> suffering or by easing the anguish <strong>of</strong> an<br />
existing child. By the implementation <strong>of</strong> regulations I believe this<br />
technology could be used for good, and any trivialisation <strong>of</strong> the technique<br />
to ‘design babies’ for cosmetic traits could be prevented.<br />
<strong>Sex</strong> Selection<br />
Another issue to consider is that <strong>of</strong> sex selection. The two main<br />
techniques used for this are, again, PGD or alternatively, sperm sorting.<br />
The HFEA’s recommendation is that sex selection should only be<br />
available “in cases in which there is a clear and overriding medical<br />
justification”, referring to the avoidance <strong>of</strong> sex-linked genetic conditions<br />
such as Tay-Sachs. [12] The British Medical Association is concurrent with<br />
this. [13] The main focus <strong>of</strong> ethical objections to this technique are linked<br />
90
Change language