Unit 1 Project

Say No to Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD)
Testing embryos before implantation for the risk of transmitting a serious genetic disorder is termed preimplantation genetic diagnosis. European countries condone and practice this method, while other countries legally forbid preimplantation genetic diagnosis. The United States have conflicting views about preimplantation genetic diagnosis. The author Alan Handyside of Nature’s article “Let Parents Decide,” believes parents make the decisions for their children’s medical concerns. This article proposes ethical and moral challenges of the highly controversial idea Pre-implantation Genetic Diagnosis, such as: failure rates resulting in terminating healthy embryos, gender selection resulting in sexism, “designer babies”, and ignoring God’s authority.
The first ethical problem regarding the procedure of preimplantation genetic diagnosis is the termination of embryos. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis creates several embryos in vitro from interested couples (Botkin). Then the embryos develop to a six-ten cell stage; here one embryonic cell is extracted from each of the embryos (Botkin). After the removal, the cellular DNA is observed and analyzed for detections of genetic mutations and chromosomal abnormities. Embryos that do not show any abnormities are transferred to uterus and ones with abnormities or the possibility of developing an abnormity are discarded (Botkin). The problem that researchers run into is discarding possibly infected embryos that are actually healthy embryos. Author Handyside states, “As genome-wide analysis becomes easier and cheaper, clinicians will be able to test embryos for many more chromosomal or single-gene defects.” Obviously he fails to recognize that increasing embryonic testing for more defects will result in more embryos being destroyed, or maybe he just does not care. Some do not consider embryos to be a form of “life” but some maybe even majority of Americans do believe life starts after conception and therefore destroying unused embryos is killing and therefore, morally unjust.
Although the purpose of preimplantation genetic diagnosis was originally to remove chromosomal abnormities found in embryos, some parents use this practice for gender selecting. Gender selection request from preimplantation genetic diagnosis comes from mainly two types of groups; one being those who wish to pick the gender of their first born child and two being those who already have a child and want to pick the gender of the second child, mostly the opposite sex of the first (Robertson). The problems with gender selection for nonmedical reasons are highly controversial when you are talking about destroying embryos. People wanting to select the gender of their first born are almost always wishing to select a male. People want to ensure they have at least one male child to carry on the family name, or prefer a male to perform certain special rituals. This procedure is not only sexism on every level but if we were to allow this method at a larger scale it could result in great disparities in the sex ratio of the population, as has occurred in China and India. Although some people disagree, feminist argue that picking the gender of a child after the first child is sexist (Robertson). It is one thing to wish to have a certain gender if you already have the other gender; however, it is a totally different thing to act against God to ensure you have a child of a certain gender. “Some would argue that any attention to the gender of offspring is inherently sexist, particularly when social attitudes and expectations play such an important role in constructing sex role expectations and behaviours” (Robertson).
What is a “designer baby?” Most identify “designer babies” as those babies whose genetic makeup was artificially selected by parents to ensure the absence or presence of particular desired genes or characteristic traits by genetic engineering (Robertson). Again, the point behind “designer babies” was not the original purpose for preimplantation genetic diagnosis but technology advances and people have changed the purpose to fit their needs. Parents are now able to choose eye color, hair color and other preferred characteristics. How can one view this as acceptable? Nature’s author Alan Handyside argues, “Many people are concerned about 'designer babies', but the scope for selecting embryos with desirable traits beyond common characteristics such as gender, hair or eye colour is constrained by several factors.” Handyside uses the phrase “beyond..characteristics such as gender, hair, or eye colour” as if choosing those characteristics aren’t harmful enough to the child. Creating a “designer baby” creates a perfect manipulated person. This process makes a baby into someone that someone else wants it to be (its parent’s, majority of the time) and not what the baby is meant to be. Parents often want their children to be what society views as pretty or right instead of what they would initially desire or what God views as right for their child.
All of the situations that I have presented above raise religious concerns. Many people strongly believe that God would not approve of humans making and destroying embryos or human life as some would say. Some, if not majority, believe that God is the creator and the destroyer, and therefore, he should be the only one to handle the making and abolishing of life, not scientists. Religious people would also contest that God would not approve of gender selecting. Again, God is the creator and it is his will to decide which gender a couple should have for whatever his reasons, not the parents themselves. As for “designer babies” the same theory applies, God makes individuals different and unique from everyone else for a purpose greater than our understanding. How boring of a world would we live in if we all had the same preferred hair color, or the same preferred eye color?
Preimplantation genetic diagnosis may have been invented for good medical purposes, (even though those aren’t justified) however, people have altered this practice for even more selfish reasons into other practices. Therefore, preimplantation genetic diagnosis should be outlawed and parents should not have the authority to “decide.”

Handyside, Alan.“Let Parent’s Decide.” Nature. (2010). Article: 15. April. 2010. Web. September. 2010.
http://www.nature.com.libproxy.lib.unc.edu/nature/journal/v464/n7291/full/464978a.html

Robertson, John.“Extending preimplantation genetic diagnosis: the ethical debate.” Oxford Journals. (2003). Vol 18. 3. 465-417. Web. September. 2010.
http://humrep.oxfordjournals.org/content/18/3/465.full#ref-23

Botkin, Jeffrey. “Ethical Issues and Practical Problems in Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis.” HeinOnline. (1998). Web. September. 2010.
http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/medeth26&div=8&id=&page=