The Ethics of Eugenics: Opting Only for Perfect Babies Would Leave Most of Us Out
Lee YanceyIn recent years, advances have been made in the field of genetics that enable scientists and parents to predetermine the traits of their babies. In vitro fertilization, freezing embryos, artificial insemination, and other methods of creating and storing life in a lab have brought to the surface ethical dilemmas that must be addressed. “A divorced couple engages in a custody battle over their unused frozen embryos. Meanwhile, some researchers want to destroy ‘extra’ embryos in hopes of curing diseases. And while some women pray for their eggs to fertilize in IVF cycles, others give permission to have their “excess” embryos destroyed. Bring up the topic of infertility and invariably someone will mention these sorts of ethical quagmires.”(1)
Many Bible-believing Christians approve the use of artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization, and other high-tech procedures, provided the egg and sperm come from married partners, and precautions are taken to honor life even at the one-celled stage. Couples using in vitro should limit the number of eggs fertilized to the number of babies they are willing to carry to term. By doing so they avoid having to later decide both about the destruction of “excess” embryos and about “selective reduction” in cases where the pregnancy results in six or seven babies. Some couples opt for freezing embryos; others have reservations about cryopreservation, feeling that it exposes the embryo to unnecessary risk and that it presumes on the couple’s future. At the very least, couples cryopreserving embryos should have a plan for carrying each one to term.(2)
In Great Britain, the Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority (HFEA) tightly regulates the fertility industry. The HFEA, the world’s first official overseer of reproductive technology, forbids human bioengineering for ‘social purposes,’ a catchall ban that largely disallows gender selection. Currently, sex-specific children is the issue but tomorrow the issue may be a bioengineered master race. Imagine babies, made-to-order, free of diseases, and endowed with sparkling blue eyes, a world in which eugenics is just another branch of science. (Eugenics involves using genetics to make society a better place.)
When in vitro fertilization began, most people thought it would deal with infertile couples who needed a baby to complete their families. However, in the mid 1990ís scientists began to see the potential for extending fertility beyond menopause, of freezing sperm or embryos, posthumous babies, and soon. IVF moved from the treatment of infertility to matters of convenience. Now that the human genome is understood (to a certain degree), we have moved to another level, genetic engineering. Embryos soon will be genetically manipulated to change their eye color, be taller or shorter, or be smarter.
American IVF clinics are attracting rich clients by selling gametes derived from Nobel laureates or Yale graduates, services which could have new legal ramifications. “If a woman gets a sperm from a Nobel sperm bank and E=mc2 isn’t the first thing out of the child’s mouth, will they sue?”(3)
The HFEA states that both the welfare of the embryo and the welfare of existing children must be taken into account. What happens however when these two obligations conflict? Take the case of Raj and Shahana Hashmi. Their 2-year-old son, Zain, suffers from beta thalassemia major, a rare blood disorder that is invariably fatal. Zain endures a harsh treatment regimen of four blood transfusions and five marathon drug-infusion sessions per week. Yet his conditioning is worsening, and he’ll soon die without a stem-cell transplant.
The national registry contains no suitable donors, so the Hashmi’s are considering a revolutionary IVF procedure to help their son. Using a pre-implantation genetic diagnosis, a doctor would select an embryo with compatible tissue from among Shahanas many fertilized eggs, and then harvest the stem-cells for Zain from the resulting child’s umbilical cord. This seems to have worked for a Colorado couple, the Nashes, whose daughter, Molly, suffers from Fanconi anemia, a blood disease that leads to bone marrow failure. The Nashes used in vitro fertilization to select a tissue- matched son, Adam, who was born last October; an infusion of stem-cells from her brother has given Molly a 90 percent chance of survival.
Because time is precious for the Hashmi’s, they are hoping for a quick decision by the HFEA. The panel members are concerned that the procedure is full of ethical perils, i.e. babies rolling off a conveyor belt and being labeled SPARE
PARTS.(4)
“The possibility of replacing diseased genes in an early embryo has tremendous therapeutic potential. The strategy takes on a new twist when it is for genetic enhancement of normal traits. Several molecular biologists have opined that such ‘techno-eugenics’ can be used to enhance beauty, intelligence, musical talent, or even temperament – as soon as trait genes are deciphered. Alternatively, some futurists have predicted that brain formation could be selectively blocked in an early embryo to create a headless fetal organ farm. The technology for such embryonic manipulation has a long way to go but it is on the horizon.”(5)
At your local in vitro fertilization clinic, advances in diagnostic screening technologies and rapidly expanding knowledge of human genes, fertility experts are able to screen test-tube embryos for a wide variety of genetic diseases and create healthy babies. Of course, that is a good thing. But the same progress could lead to screening embryos for characteristics that extend beyond health. For instance, little Bobby sleeps through the night as a baby, always behaves, and seems to love math, while brother Billy is colicky, never listens, and already is the head of a gang in kindergarten. But as scientists begin to learn how particular groups of genes and patterns of gene activity are associated with specific personalities and traits, parents will be able to use in vitro fertilization to create and screen embryos for desired attributes. Only the desirable embryos are implanted, and troublesome Billy is never born. Sound creepy, or does it make you want to sign up? Expels say this could be happening in 10 years. A USA/CNN/Gallup Poll shows that 88% of people oppose allowing parents to select the genetic traits of their children.(6)
Congress is focused on human cloning and stem-cell research. Fertility clinics, meanwhile, are unregulated, and Congress appears to have no interest in regulating them.
Meanwhile, fertility expels continue to improve the art of creating robust human embryos. To ensure that the public isn’t left with a scientific monster that no one knows how to handle, the public should soon decide how it wants to handle the potential to choose children’s genes.
1. Sandra Glahn and William Cutrer, M.D., “The Baby Blues,” Light, Fall 2001, pp. 4-5.
2. Ibid
3. Brendan I. Koerner, “Embryo Police,” Wired, February 2002, pp. 53-57.
4. Ibid
5. Bernadine Healy, “A humanoid in the manger,” U.S. News and World Report December 23, 2002, page 55.
6. Tim Friend, “Blueprint for life,” USA Today January 27,2003, pp. D1-2.
Salt & Light: A NEWSLETTER OF THE MISSISSIPPI BAPTIST CHRISTIAN ACTION COMMISSION March/April 2003, VOL. 16, NO. 2