Australia’s Daily Telegraph recently published this story about a lawsuit brought against an IVF clinic by Aussie parents because doctors failed to identify a “cancer gene” in a procedure known as “preimplantation genetic diagnosis”.
According to the Telegraph:
Pre-implantation genetic diagnosis, or PGD, was pioneered by Victorian scientists, and the controversial gene screening has been embraced by fertility clinics around Australia and the world. It is billed as a way of reducing the incidence of deadly genetic diseases, including more than 30 inherited cancers, cystic fibrosis, deafness and blindness. Dozens of Australian children have been born using the controversial technique, which has triggered ethical and legal debate over whether scientists should be allowed to “play God’”. The tests are carried out on an IVF embryo when it has eight cells. A single cell is removed and DNA tested for gene mutations. The mother who is suing produced eight IVF embryos for genetic testing. Of the embryos tested, only two were given the all-clear for implantation. The others were discarded.
Doctors reportedly assured the parents that their child would not have a hereditary, cancer-causing genetic mutation. The doctors were wrong, and now the child has a high probability of developing cancer at some point in his life.
Stories like this shine a clear spotlight upon the ethical minefield of modern genetics. Since the successful mapping of the human genome in 2003, scientists have been working feverishly to identify genetic predispositions to diseases like cancer and Alzheimer’s disease. As further discoveries are made and technology continues to develop, a host of ethical problems will arise. It’s hard to imagine, that in the not-too-distant future, human beings will be “genetically designed” not to develop cancer. Perhaps we will never discover a cure for cancer because there will be no need: people will simply be immune to it.
But why stop at cancer? Why not “turn off” the gene that gives rise to obesity as well? And while we’re at it, let’s make sure that the genes are arranged to produce intelligence and a balanced personality. Then maybe we can tweak the genes that will determine personal appearance – because after all – who wants to have an unattractive child when they could have otherwise?
-
So how about it? Would you allow your child to be “genetically vaccinated” against cancer or other diseases?
-
What about obesity?
-
Below (or even average) intelligence?
-
An introverted personality?
-
Unattractiveness?
I’m quite sure that I could go along with number one. I’m not so sure about two. The rest of this list gets progressively more scary. What do you guys thing about it?
February 27, 2008 at 1:05 am
“…and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have now imagined to do.”
In our arrogance and pride we declare that we can improve on the image of God. By “improving” on that image we, in fact, declare ourselves to be god. I would not choose for my child to have cancer, or some birth defect, but they would still be my child and my Love for them would not be determined at all by their seeming “broken-ness.”
I cherish my children as a gift from God, in whatever condition. You say that is easy for you, your children are not deformed, or defective. And, by the grace of God, I say you are right; they are not. But Love is not based on form, or function or productivity or any external measure of worth or value. I love my children because they are my children, loaned to me to love and raise up as unto the Lord (by whose hand they came).
Just because a thing can be done does not follow that a thing ought be done. Yesterday’s science fiction is today’s reality. Think about it, are we not living the opening monologue for the Six-Million Dollar Man?
“Steve Austin, Astronaut, a man barely alive.
Gentlemen, we have the technology, we can rebuild him, make him better than he was, better, faster, stronger…”
It seems to fulfill the precepts of the Humanist Manifesto, and the “Hedonistic Imperative”. Man can be improved through education, biological manipualtion, and chemistry. Science will save us all. “A few generations hence, the intoxicating joy of normal post-Darwinian life will be genetically pre-programmed.” quoted from http://www.hedweb.com/hedethic/hedon1.htm#biological
In the B-movie, “The Librarian” Noah Wyle’s character is confronted with His final challenge in his quest to find the last piece of the “Spear of Destiny”. He stands before a bronze Budda and has to answer the question, “What is the name of God?” He thinks and then as if it is a simple child’s riddle, he presses the letters M and E.
February 27, 2008 at 11:13 am
But would removing a “cancer” gene be equivocated to taking a flu shot to prevent the flu? Its another form of prevention medicine. Would this be ethical?
February 27, 2008 at 11:49 am
Were the line goes? This days we use some techniques to prevent a baby to be born cripple, what the different?
February 27, 2008 at 12:26 pm
Steph,
I think that you could categorize the switching off of the “cancer gene” (or Alzheimer’s gene or autistic gene for that matter) as a form of preventive medicine. That’s why I stated that I would probably go along with it (provided that it had been proven to be safe and effective).
baby boy,
I think you have hit the crux of the matter here. Where do we draw the line? Preventing cancer is one thing, but what about preventing unattractiveness or a certain personality type? Modern society does not have a great track record in regards to slippery slopes like this.
March 7, 2008 at 2:36 am
I answer yes for 1,2,3 and 5. And I defend the right for a parent to choose an introverted child if they so wish, although that would not be my preference.
Scariness does not imply ‘wrongness’. An emotional reaction does not an moral argument make.
March 8, 2008 at 2:40 pm
Thanks for the comment Joshua (great name by the way!)
You’re exactly right that “scariness” neither implies evil or provides the basis for a moral argument. And as you can see in my post, I don’t assert either.
However, the questions that these matters raise do make me uneasy. I’m still in the process of thinking through these things myself. That’s why I included the words “ethical quagmire” in the title of my post. Bioethical questions are some of the toughest around. I think, in matters such as this, we should proceed with extreme caution and careful consideration rather than just an immediate acceptance of whatever technological wonder comes our way (think nuclear weaponry, Nagasaki and Hiroshima).
I appreciate your comment. Stop by anytime!
March 9, 2008 at 6:42 am
Yes, I’m not saying that we should just run in blindly. But again, these are people’s babies we’re limiting, not weapons-grade uranium.
I think we need very good reasons to limit some person’s reproductive freedom. Simply being unsure whether something is a good idea doesn’t really do it (in my opinion anyway). Really, I think only strong evidence of a severe problem could possibly justify such a limitation.
Oh, and feel free to stop by my blog any time (I forgot to link to it last time. In case it doesn’t work this time, it’s hplusbiopolitics.wordpress.com). Bioethical quagmires are my bread and butter!
March 11, 2008 at 10:55 am
Thanks Joshua again for the comment. I’m not sure, but are you suggesting eugenics?
btw. I looked at your site. Although I can’t say that I am in ethical agreement with everything. The stuff you talk about is just pretty darn cool. Nanotechnology and biological modification has always fascinated me.
To be fair, I think I need to make it clear that posts here at Quadrivium are coming from a decidedly Christian worldview. Hence, when worldviews collide, different ethical positions will be taken (I’m not assuming your own worldview btw).
Thanks again for the thoughtful response!
March 16, 2008 at 4:12 am
I have just finished a write-up on my position regarding eugenics on my blog. Whether or not you could say that what I am suggesting is eugenics depends very much how you define of eugenics. I do not think I am suggesting eugenics, because I define eugenics as “interference in human reproduction to achieve or maintain an ideal human race”. I don’t think any of us has a right to tell other people when to have babies, how many to have or what sort they should be.
And feel free to assume that I am not a Christian, because that assumption is correct. Also, I’m not convinced that Christianity requires one to reject the prospect of ‘designer babies’.
March 16, 2008 at 3:20 pm
Hey Joshua,
Just finished reading your postings on Eugenics/Newgenics. I’ll have to think on some of it for a while.
I am in total agreement with you with the non-interference in the when, how many or what sort of children one can have. I come to that conclusion from a Biblical Worldview that says all life is precious because we are made in the image of our Creator God.
As I stated in the first comment above I don’t believe in “designer” babies because it reduces humanity to the equivalency of a new car purchase. What type, what color, what extras… atheletic? Smart? Beauty? All able to be manipulated by tweaking the genetic coding. Such tweaking is so much more acceptable than the “Final Solution” or Sanger’s ‘Human weeds” policy of sterilization and segregation. Yet is it not the same result? Worthiness of life determined by some subjective criteria set forth by someone or group of someones who pass judgment on what is desirable?
The potential for misuse is too great as well. At the most basic level of designer babies is choosing what sex it will be. Look at what has happened in India over the past decade. Offically it isn’t suposed to happen but couples have been aborting female babies in favor of having males. http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s1242394.htm.
Life begins at conception, a new strand of DNA begins and life begins to grow. To tweak that life inorder to produce a desired result is to play God.
March 16, 2008 at 3:29 pm
Hi Joshua, welcome back!
I agree with what you have just stated concerning eugenics. I was just wanting to make sure what you meant by “limiting a person’s reproductive freedom”.
As to Christianity. A person’s stance on bioethics will be GREATLY determined by their worldview. Since Christianity is a worldview (and one that I believe to be correct), it will certainly determine what those who adhere to it think about ‘designer babies’.
As to whether Christianity requires that somone reject ‘designer babies’: it’s according what you mean by the word. I’ll admit that it’s a pretty mushy term to begin with. Again, many Christians would have no problem ‘genetically vaccinating’ their babies against life-threatening diseases and negative diatheses. However, if this process involves the destruction of human embryos or begins to become an ‘aesthetic’ process (as persifler seems to be referring to above), I can think of many (if not most) Christians who would disagree.
March 16, 2008 at 10:12 pm
persifler,
Firstly, parents already have control over what characteristics they see as desirable in their child. At the moment, they are limited to encouraging or discouraging certain behaviours. But at no point do they think that a misbehaving child is not worthy of living.
Also, we already have the ability (and use it to a great degree) to choose the characteristics of our children by simply choosing the characteristics of our partner. We are entitled to judge what is desirable in a partner, but if we choose to have children by them, we are in a sense choosing what would be desirable for our children also.
Parents, by their very nature, are likely to love their children no matter what. Yet it is precisely for that reason they will want the best for their children, and should be able to seek it – whether lecturing their child about doing homework or giving them the genetic basis for conscientiousness.
As for sex selection (I did blog about this a while back), there can be problems if the choices are one-sided. But those could be limited with legal restrictions. The real question to be asking is whether choosing the gender of your child is in itself wrong, regardless of what everyone else does.
(you may note that, for the benefit of the people here, I have assumed that none of the above manipulations destroy embryos)
March 29, 2008 at 5:12 am
“Designer babies” is a term coined by the media to encourage stupid people to waste time contemplating things that are in the realm of science fiction only. There are ethical guidelines regarding what can be tested for with PGD – and it is a wonderful technique that gives parents, who have often had to watch their children suffer terrible disease, and sometimes die, some help in having a healthy child. These people are not doing this because they are selfish – they suffer guilt because they carry a mutation that causes the disease in their children and they feel a RESPONSIBILITY to not cause their children harm by passing it on. These people should be applauded for their courage, as the journey they go on through IVF and PGD is not an easy one. This is what the world should discuss – not the science fiction.
March 29, 2008 at 11:58 am
Hi Sharyn, thanks for the comment.
This post was really about a theoretical ethical discussion, hence the perceived foray into ’science fiction’.
The excerpted article about PGD was the catalyst for the thought experiment. In a world where it is possible to manipulate the genes of an unborn child, where does was one draw the line as to what is ethically acceptable? This is admittedly a hypothetical question (although rapidly advancing biotechnology may make it a reality in the future). Philosophers and ethicists used such hypothetical thought questions all the time in an effort to explore and understand ethical theories. These efforts are neither stupid nor ill-informed, just another way of approaching the topic of ethics.
As to the ethics surrounding IVF and PGD, that is really another post entirely. Suffice it to say that these are still considered ethically controversial by many intelligent people, especially for those who consider the destruction of human embryos unethical.
Stop by anytime Sharyn!