Here's a story in the UK Guardian about a deaf couple who have a deaf daughter. They now want a second child, but because of the mother's age (she's in her early 40's) they think they may need to resort to IVF - most likely because of maternal age, she will need an egg donor. And they want to design/select for deafness. However, the UK law requires that "only the good embryos" can be implanted - which means no deaf children.
"The government's Human Fertilisation and Embryology (HFE) bill, scheduled to go through the Commons this spring, will block any attempt by couples like Garfield and Lichy to use modern medical techniques to ensure their children are deaf."
Strange times we live in thanks to reproductive technology gone wild in a world that champions reproductive rights, choice and autonomy. No moral tether at all.
Jennifer Lahl Founder and National Director of the Center for Bioethics and Culture Network (CBC). She serves on the North American editorial board for the international journal, Ethics and Medicine, and is a Fellow of the Council for Biotechnology Policy in Washington, DC.
Thoughts on the role of science, technology and medicine for the human future, and the uses which promote human flourishing and the common good. The views expressed here acknowledge my personal belief in the inviolabilty of human life and the dignity of all human beings.
the Human Future
Share the Human Future
Links from the Human Future
Labels
- 2008 in review (1)
- 2009 Loser (3)
- 2009 Paul Ramsey (2)
- 2009 Winner (6)
- adult stem cell research (17)
- Advanced Cell Technology (1)
- alison murdoch (1)
- ALS (1)
- animal cloning (1)
- animal rights activists (1)
- art (2)
- artificial gametes (1)
- artificial life (1)
- artificial wombs (1)
- bail-out (1)
- banking on life (1)
- bejing (1)
- Bioethics (2)
- birth defects (1)
- boondoggle (3)
- brain death (1)
- BRCA1 gene (1)
- Bush (1)
- California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (1)
- calla papademas (2)
- canada (2)
- cancer (2)
- cancer link (2)
- chimeras (4)
- Christmas (1)
- Chuck Colson (1)
- CIRM (4)
- class action lawsuit (1)
- clinical trials (1)
- Clinton (1)
- cloning (30)
- cord blood banking (6)
- cord blood stem cells (8)
- culture of death (1)
- cyborgs (1)
- cybrids (1)
- dallas news (1)
- designer babies (5)
- documentary (1)
- Dolly the Sheep (2)
- donor (1)
- donor registry (2)
- donor siblings (6)
- Dr. Burt (1)
- egg donation (35)
- egg donor registry (3)
- Egg Donors (7)
- egg freezing (3)
- egg sharing (3)
- eggs (14)
- eggsploitation (21)
- embryo adoption (2)
- embryo grading (1)
- embryonic stem cells (24)
- eSET (4)
- ethical stem cell research (5)
- ethics (2)
- eugenics (5)
- euthanasia (3)
- exploitation (4)
- fat tissue (1)
- fatherhood (2)
- FDA (3)
- fertility drugs (2)
- fertility tourism (1)
- film (1)
- fraudulent research (1)
- frozen embryos (1)
- gamete registry (1)
- genetic pricing (1)
- genetic privacy (3)
- genetic testing (3)
- genetics (1)
- germany (4)
- Geron (4)
- Gilbert Meilaender (2)
- GINA (1)
- GlobalARTusa (1)
- helsinki (1)
- HFEA (1)
- Hippocratic oath (3)
- human animal hybrids (5)
- human clinical trials (1)
- human dignity (2)
- human exceptionalism (2)
- human genome (1)
- human rights (2)
- human trafficking (1)
- hype (1)
- Ian Wilmut (3)
- immortality (1)
- in vitro technologies (1)
- infertility (4)
- informed consent (1)
- iPS cells (24)
- IVF (26)
- IVY League Egg Donors (2)
- James Watson (2)
- jessica wing (1)
- kathleen labounty (1)
- Knighthood (1)
- Lines that Divide (1)
- loser 2008 (2)
- Lou Gehrig's disease (1)
- louise brown (1)
- louisiana (1)
- lupron (1)
- man vs. machine (1)
- mandatory sterilization (1)
- minnesota (1)
- misrepresentation (1)
- multiple births (1)
- Nancy Pelosi (1)
- nerve cells (1)
- new feminism (1)
- NIH funding (2)
- Obama (4)
- obesity (1)
- OHSS (4)
- olympics (1)
- organ donation (4)
- Osiris (1)
- ovarian hypertimulation (3)
- patents (1)
- PCOB (1)
- pet cloning (4)
- PGD (5)
- physician assisted suicide (4)
- politics (1)
- post-menopausal pregnancy (2)
- pre-term births (1)
- Predictions (1)
- primates (1)
- proposition 71 (3)
- reckless IVF (5)
- Regenerative Medicine (2)
- regulation (1)
- Reproductive Tourism (2)
- resource allocation (1)
- rights of conscience (2)
- savior sibling (3)
- scams (1)
- Schwarzenegger (1)
- scnt (1)
- sex selection (1)
- single embryo transfer (1)
- snake oil (1)
- sperm donation (19)
- spinal cord injury (2)
- stem cell banking (1)
- stem cell research (12)
- stem cells (8)
- stemagen (1)
- stroke (1)
- surplus embryos (1)
- surrogacy (8)
- synthetic biology (1)
- therapeutic cloning (2)
- trafficking (1)
- transhumanism (3)
- tumors (3)
- type -1 diabetes (1)
- umbilical cord blood (4)
- VC funding (2)
- venter (1)
- washington (1)
- winner 2008 (6)
- Yale (1)
11 comments:
Doesn't the fact that society is blocking this attempt mean that some "moral tether" does in fact exist?
Wait a sec. I am deaf, I understand their choice. We are a dying culture because 95% of deaf children are given cochlear implants or hearing aids and are sent off to Mainstream. We have a language, and that is the defining aspect of a culture. Why are hearing people trying to get rid of us? It might be unintentional, but they look at us and feel sorry for us because we can't hear, and they look at embryo's and realise that these ones will be deaf, and they throw them out. Why can't we throw out hearing embryos if they can do so without even asking for our consent?
We are not machines, but if something doesn't work "properly" (adheres to the idea of what a "normal" human being is capable of), then people freak and try their best to make them function as "naturally" as possible.
There is no such thing as a "good" embryo (outside those who have diseases that will result in intense pain and suffering and death by the age of 1 or something). Should an embryo be born deaf or blind, then that is no reason to reject the child. Britain is acting like a little Eugenicist society.
The issue at hand is our desire to pick and choose our children and to make them what we want them to be or not be. Whether it is the HFEA telling us what embryos (which good ones) can be implanted and what embryos can not be implanted OR parents/individuals picking and choosing their children by their own design. That is at the heart of these questions.
Jennifer,
So parents picking the traits of their children is bad, but government trying to stop parents from picking the traits of their children is also bad? Wow, you're hard to please!
Perhaps you could clarify your position?
So it sounds like you think picking traits of children is a good thing? I don't think "picking" is good, no matter who does the picking. Is that hard to please? I wasn't picked. Thankfully, because there are probably lots of people who wouldn't have picked me!
Jennifer,
I haven't stated any specific position on the topic, and my views aren't really the issue here. I'm just trying to figure out what your post actually meant.
You say you're anti-"picking", but at the same time you criticise the government for preventing a couple from engaging in trait selection. Doesn't that strike you as a bizarre position to take?
Bear in mind that the UK government isn't forcing anyone to only implant hearing embryos. It just forbids screening for the purpose of implanting deaf embryos.
Have you followed many postings on my blog site? My views are pretty apparent. That's one comment I receive often, that no one needs to wonder what my views are.
Picking is eugenic in nature. To select for or against seems to be the same.
Strange times we live in thanks to reproductive technology gone wild in a world that champions reproductive rights, choice and autonomy. No moral tether at all.
But there is absolutely no reproductive choice or autonomy in this case. The parents have their right to reproductive autonomy taken from them if they cannot choose what sort of baby to have.
Regardless of whether the government is saying that only good embryos should be implanted, or that people should not be able to pick what embryos are implanted, the end result is a complete loss of this fundamental freedom.
This makes it authoritarian eugenics (as opposed to the liberal eugenics that would result from parents having the choice). You can pick which eugenics you want, but no matter what you do, you will end up with one or the other.
Whose fundamental freedom? I suppose you are considering the child doesn't have a fundamental freedom to not be the product of our own desires? And you assume the right to reproduce?
Of course I don't consider that freedom. It is precisely in violation of that freedom that we all exist, because we are all a product (or accidental by-product) of our parents desires. And disciplining a child, teaching them to act the way you desire, is all creating a child that is the product of their parent's desires.
And I do think that we have a right to reproduce. It's in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 16. I only think this right could be forfeited if it would cause such harm to the resulting child that their life should not be created (such as an infant born into a life of constant pain), or maybe if such reproduction would likely cause severe harm to others.
Thanks for clarifying.
Post a Comment