Advance research into reproductive technologies has been both beneficial and controversial. Such research has lead to the ability of screening embryos prior to implantation into the mother. Although it may be argued that this can be beneficial by preventing diseases such as cystic fibrosis and in the future cure many genetic diseases, the extent of its possible boundaries remains uncertain.
Not many people would argue that on the balance it is not morally wrong to screen embryos to prevent a child suffering disease, but opinion becomes the opposite when you consider doing the same to determine the sex/intelligence/hair colour of a child. The House of Lords in the Hashmi case have ruled that the tissue typing of embryos to help their sick siblings is lawful. However, the ruling has not set any boundaries as to what such procedures can be used for. I can imagine there being a case in the future where the parents wish to "design" their child, either based on looks/intelligence/sex. We will have to wait and see what the courts say then.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I agree that these procedures should be allowed in cases where the life of the foetus or it's siblings can be saved or greatly improved, but totally disagree with using them to determine the sex/intelligence of a child.
When embryos are screened, what happens to those which are rejected? They are thrown away! When there are so many people in the UK who cannot have children and cannot afford IVF or other treatments, suitable embryos are being discarded. Could there not be a system where these embryos are impregnated into other women?
Its all getting very "Brave New World". Eventually we'll perfect cloning too, insurance companies can charge us different rates depending on our genes etc.
Morally now its wrong, but I suspect a few generations on will consider our values as antiquated as the Victorians!
although it would prevent children suffering from diseases we are descrimenated now because of race, sex, colour and the differences have sparked many wars, would this not lead to the dying out of certain races as parents are worried that their children would suffer from this as well?
This would happen naturally anyway to a certain extent, i.e. the ginger hair gene will be gone in 100 years apparently and the blonde may be gone in 500 years (can't remember where I saw the article). Natural selection favours those that can survive, procreate and have dominant genes. To an extent we're speeding the process.
"would this not lead to the dying out of certain races as parents are worried that their children would suffer from this as well?"
Post a Comment