"a baby whose genetic makeup has been artificially selected by genetic engineering combined with in vitro fertilization to ensure the presence or absence of particular genes or characteristics"
The media portrays the idea as parents picking and choosing physical features such as gender, eye/hair colour, intelligence, height, etc. Right away, most people would shake their heads at the idea and call it shallow. In this sense, I agree. For cosmetic purposes, creating designer babies is wrong because it makes a conditional love before the child is even born. Being the parents, they should accept and care for their child regardless. This side of the argument is simple enough, so next is the medical aspect.
Chris Kirby was born with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, a genetic heart disease that can induce cardiac arrest at any age. He and his wife wanted more children, but were worried about putting them at risk for this condition. To solve their problem, they turned to In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) and pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD). This means that a cell is removed from the embryos to check for the disease. Only the cells without the gene are implanted in the mother's uterus. This gave Chris Kirby and Tanya Fawkes-Kirby two healthy twin daughters who don't have the defect, and therefore cannot pass it on to their future children.
With their happy ending in mind, can someone really say that what they did was wrong? Many doctors don't consider this type of screening to be creating designer babies, but see it as a preemptive measure instead. However, this still makes controversy around the concept that "some embyros aren't good enough" and that every fertilized egg is a potential life. What do you think?
Those are the two main ideas that come to mind when thinking about designer babies. But have you thought about parents who want their children to have deformities? Online magazine Slate calls it "Designer Babies: The deliberate crippling of children". These genetic defects include deafness, blindness, dwarfism, etc. Parents say this is because they want children who are the same as them. In these scenarios, I think pre-implantation screening is wrong. This goes directly hand-in-hand with the superficial aspect., though I think my mind could sway to understand their perspective. The parents should love the child exactly the same as they would if he/she had the same characteristic as themselves.
In conclusion, I believe that screening of embryos for health purposes is fine. It can save a child's life. If people say that it's still creating a designer baby, I argue that the child is still theirs. The traits are still inherited from the parents, the harmful ones are just prevented. It creates so much controversy that I doubt choosing superficial traits will become an actual trend.
Here's a picture of a totally adorable baby who seems to be reading a book. Awww. I just hope those glasses have no prescription.
Sources:
CTV BC - Screening could create 'designer babies'
Readers Digest - Designer Babies
USA Today - Some ponder 'designer' babies with Mom or Dad's defective genes
Slate Magazine - The deliberate crippling of children
All images hyperlinked to source.
Blogs I've commented on:
Connie Tang - Designer babies!!!
Melissa Quinn - Designer Babies; Are we taking Science too far?
hey angeli, I absolutely love your title. I had to consciously make sure that I didn't steal it for my own blog. I think you made some strong arguements through out your blog such as your view against screening for comsetic traits. I like the fact that you a lot of people would automatically dismiss the idea of the screening for cosmetic traits, which is true. But then you dug deeper into the issue. I hadn't heard the point about people purposely making sure their kids are disabled, which I find kind of creepy but interesting at the same time. I enjoyed your visuals and your overall blog. Good job!
ReplyDeleteI had never thought about parents who actually wanted their children to have deformities. That is completely beyond me. It seems kind of hypocritical to me. These parents are still expressing conditional love towards their child; but in this case, it's because they look the same as them, instead of being because they are attractive. I think genetic manipulation being used for cosmetic reasons is wrong altogether, regardless of whether or not the parents want their "designer baby" to be attractive or unattractive. I think that if the process of creating designer babies does become available to the public, it will need to be restricted for only medical purposes.
ReplyDeleteI think that it's great that there is technology to avoid passing on genetic disorders to the next generations, but form what you have said, it seems that this benefit is not the sole purpose of this method of fertilization anymore. I find it appalling that parents would choose to allow their children to live with a disability, just so they don't feel alone with a disability. That is just absurd, in my opinion. Also, I like how your title reflects on how a designer baby is like a custom made item, and it gives off the vibe of the baby not being of natural selection.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think its a good thing that people who would be doomed by such disorders as hypertrophic cardiomyopathy and other fatal genetic diseases, can now have the chance to live out a normal life. On your point "some embyros aren't good enough" I would say that if you can save somebody from living a hard, painful life full of suffering, I would encourage you to do it.
ReplyDelete*I also have to add that what you said about parents using this technology to purposely disable there children is ridiculous. This is a complete misuse of the technology as it is being created to help save and better people's lives. I hope that if this technology does become commonly used in the future parents will not be allowed to purposely disable their children, and hopefully a law is passed to further prevent it as well. By the way you had a very clever title.
I agree with that fact that genetic screening for health purposes it completely fine. Especially when the parent just want to prevent a disorder they've had to be passed on to their children. No one wants to see their child suffer from something they inherited from them. So when there are ways to prevent they should be able to do it without being judged. You brought up a good point about how there's too much controversy around genetic screening/modification for cosmetic purposes. It never occurred to me that because of that it wouldn't be able to actually be practiced in todays world. The story about the couple who wanted to prevent their children from obtaining the disorder of having cardiac arrest at any age just really proves the good that could come out of genetic screening.
ReplyDelete