As before there is the similar procedure of Pre-implantation Genetic Diagnosis where the embryo is actually selected, so that the parents can ensure that their child does not have serious genetic illnesses such as Huntingdon’s Disease, or genetic conditions like Down’s Syndrome. The other reason for this type of procedure, which becoming ever more common, and good evidence for the against case, that in fact ‘ designer babies’ are not wrong, in when a healthy baby is created in order to treat a sick sibling. For example
If the child’s elder brother or sister, who is in desperate need of a perfect tissue match, and the only way that they could have this life saving transfer would be through the donation of cells, or bone marrow form a sibling with identical make-up. This is what many have been wanting to use PGD for, but have been very restricted hear in the United Kingdom, die to legislation.
The Case For
Like many advanced technological procedures in the medical field, there are always activists who see it is as ethically wrong due to the interference in nature, and playing the part of God. The creation of designer babies is no different, it still holds the centre of much resentment from many religious groups, activists , the government and bad press.
To begin with there is the question of whether or not the whole idea is ethically sound, since this could just be the start to a very slippery slope towards the cloning of human beings, which is naturally the biggest worry of all. With the aid of bad publicity, the British public now associate the words designer baby, with the use of cloning, or the root cause that will led to human races down fall towards cloning our own species. Unfortunately there are scientists which have been brave enough to even suggest a form of embryo engineering which could be classed as border-line cloning. A Dr French Anderson put forward his radical ideas in 1998, involving the insertion of new genes into the foetus whilst in the womb. This was all based on the theory that a genetic disease can be caused by a single damaged gene, and to treat this he thought it could insert a new healthy gene into the foetus’ cells to replace the previous one which was the root to a genetic disease. Dr French Anderson who is based at the Southern Californian University stated specifically that ‘The only protection society has from a slippery slope that basically leads to a Gattaca type environment -- designer babies, a master race -- is public scrutiny," Anderson said, referring to the 1997 film where babies are genetically engineered ( referenced from CNC- babies from design website.) He has made is quite clear that his research is not based on any superficial qualities only the want to find a cure for sufferers in white blood cell deficiencies using gene therapy, nothing more.
But for many this is not firm enough evidence to base an argument on, if anything this only stimulates the pessimists into believing that the world is now considering engineering genes within a foetus. Dr Anderson is still pioneering into genetic therapy, and has already used his technique to treat children with faulty white blood cells, but unfortunately with a low success rate. Once again this only encourages the activists to believe that their case is right, since the success rate is low, it is not therefore unsafe to trial this type of scientific techniques on an unborn child.
Along with the pursuit of many to argue that designer babies are the ignition for the human cloning, there are also many who oppose the concept because they see it as essentially ‘ murder.’ Like the controversial issue of abortion , designer babies brings up that the issue of when does life begin? For those with either personal or religious beliefs, some believe that is begins at conception and therefore by disposing of fertillised embryos, you are effectively killing a person, such pressure groups who take this moral view are Pro-Life Organisation, and SPUC, who publicise the rights of the unborn child.
Another term which has been associated with the creation of a designer baby is the word ‘commodity’ thus being if a child is created for the intention to help its elder sibling, it is only being used as a commodity and is not being made out of love. Many argue that the child is being ‘used’ and the parents would be greatly disappointed if once born the child, was not able to provide the required cells needed to help save their sibling, and could cause resentment. Also is it fair to ask for a child to have this weight on its shoulders as it grows up, that when it is old enough to be operated on, their elder sibling is going to rely on them to under go surgery, as their last chance to live?
However the main concern that people share in designer babies, is literally what it stands for, that in the future couples will be able to design characteristics in their children, and choose desirable features such as eye colour, sex, and hair colour. There is this risk within the society that we live in today that this could in fact happen. If you study the superficial factors that dominate our culture through the press and celebrity imagery, it is not hard to imagine that within say 20 years time, the rich and famous will be able to afford to design their child, in order for them ‘ fit in.’
The Case Against
With any controversial argument you have to weigh up the pros and cons, and it has to be said that there are a great deal of advantages to the procedures that create designer babies. The ultimate advantage has to be the quality of life that the child will have, with the screening that takes place of the genetic information that the embryos hold within the laboratory, scientists can prevent a child from being born with deadly diseases such as Huntingdon’s Disease. Surely this is not only more beneficial to the unborn child, who will not have to face life with this impediment, but one must also take into careful consideration the lives of the parents. Naturally all parents will want their children to be happy, healthy and to have a long life, however there are couples that are ware that within their genetic make-up holds the gene which once allowed to be dominant, express a mutation to the persons health. With a disease such as cystic fibrosis, it is caused by a recessive allele, and therefore can only be passed on if both parents have the recessive gene, therefore making the risk of 1 in 1600 people in the UK alone to suffer the disease. If this being the case , the chance that parents could still have healthy children using the aid of IVF and PGD, to fertillise eggs, and then to screen the genetic information within each embryo, since there is a 1 in 4 chance that one of the embryos will not have the faulty gene. Many couples are dependent on technological advances and procedures to allow them to even have healthy children, and is it fair to take this right away from them?
Being born to help a sibling is another major part that the term designer baby has adapted. If anything it is reassuring to know that scientists now have the technology and the capability to help children with rare conditions, nut in order for them to do this they need the donor of the required bone marrow or tissue, to have a very similar genetic make-up to the match. The obvious answer would be to ask the parents to donate, and naturally parents offer anything to help save the life of their child, but usually their genetic match is not close, enough since the child holds half of the mothers information and half of the fathers, the other major knock back is the age difference between child and parent, which is usually a great factor in donations. Therefore the alternative being the use of PGD to screen the couples embryos to search for the perfect match to the elder sibling, and fundamentally save the elder sibling’s life. Good evidence to back the success that designer babies can have on the lives of the family are apparent in Kuliev and colleagues who have helped to produce 5 births , who are perfect medical matches to donate tissue etc to their siblings. Between 2002 and 2003 using IVF 199 embryos were created for 9 couples who each had a child needing a bone marrow transplant. A quarter of these embryos were HLA- matched, which stands for Human Leukocyte Antigen matched, determining the capability between a successful match between donor and recipient.
Another case study which could testify against the idea that designer babies are wrong are a British couple, Michelle and Jayson Whitaker who have a severely ill son Charlie who has a extremely rare blood disorder- Diamond Blackfan Anaemia . The couple appealed to the Human Feritllisation and Embryology Authority ( HFEA) for permission to select an embryo with the perfect match for Charlie to have a blood transfusion. They were denied this right and consequently had to travel to the United States where this use of IVF is legal. Since then the couple have successfully had another baby, with the perfect blood match for Charlie , and the newcomer to the family Jamie, is greatly loved and his contribution to his older brother cannot be measured. When an embryo has been selected an insertion has been successful into the womb, it is later on during the pregnancy that the child’s use is apparent, as tissue is subtracted form the umbilical chord, for stem cell reproduction. This is therefore not as intrusive a procedure that many newspapers would have it seem, and does not give all the hallmarks to this idea that a baby is born only to be operated on, because as it happens it is quite the opposite, the child is not even born when he or she aids their sick sibling.
Those that argue the case that child who has been created through IVF and PGD, as a designer baby, are less loved have no evidence to back up this assumption. Who is to say that the couple did not want more children any way, and the child who has saved the life of their sibling will be so precious and appreciated that he or she has held the key to forming a larger family.
Finally there is this persistence that designer babies are leading the way to cloning in human beings, and that we are crossing the mark into the dangerous territory of embryo cloning. What many are missing here when they identify this problem is that there are great fundamental differences between that of normal fertillisation of an embryo in a laboratory, to that of nuclear cloning. Nuclear cloning comes from a somatic cell, which is one taken from the body, the genes in a somatic cell are not the same as those in a fertillised egg, and therefore cannot be compared. It has been argued by many scientists that the two process are so different that a comparison cannot be drawn, and no link made that designer babies will led to cloning.
If society has this fear of designer babies being the source to future cloning, or the accessibility for parents to unnaturally select the characteristics of their unborn baby, then surely this tells us that there is a problem with society not with science. If people can even suggest that the public would want this option of choosing desirable characteristics in their children’s genes, then our society must be a very superficial and ugly one at that.
Conclusion
From the extensive research that I have done, and by studying some of my case studies I feel that I’m able to draw a firm conclusion against my opposing question ‘ Are designer Babies wrong?’ the actual concept of designing a baby for cosmetic purposes is definitely wrong, but this term has been developed and promoted in a unproductive way by the British media. Which consequently has created an unnecessarily link between doctors screening embryos for genetic diseases, and that of engineering embryos to develop specific characteristics.
If you were to weigh up the advantages with the disadvantages I think you would find that when you compare the survival of an elder sibling, against the fantasy that in future generations we will be able to design our children, I feel that the life of the sick child bares far more ground. One must also consider the quality of life that a child would have, if natural fertilization had been allowed to take place between the parents who carried the recessive allele for such genetic diseases as cystic fibrosis. By screening embryos before hand, and preventing the development of an embryo , you are effectively preventing a child from having a low quality of life, which could be filled with suffering through their illness. The devastation the parents would have to face as well, would be immense if the child would have only a short life , and within it be in pain. Naturally I can appreciate the moral issues that arise with any medical interference, and can accept how an individual could see it wrong to dispose of embryos, but without these chances the lives of young children would be wasted, or a child being born with a life threatening disease.
To conclude it is society’s view that needs to change, and needs to realize that as long as no body requests to design their baby, then scientists are not going to offer it. Thousands of scientists and biochemists have empahised the seriousness that is IVF and PGD, and that they do serve a real purpose, and have no intention to use it to make money, or create cosmetically designed children. So why are we even considering it? Just like the issue of cloning, the aims of serious scientists is not to clone human beings because their too believe it is unethical, and yet we are so far away from reaching that catastrophic phase, so why should we face the birth of many children with genetic diseases, or risk losing their lives if siblings because to screen embryos ‘designer babies’ may one day increase the chances of human cloning, this cannot be just?