RSS 2.0 FeedFurther Thoughts On So-Called “Designer Children”
by Doug MataconisIn this post, Andrew Sullivan laments reports of parents who are apparently choosing to abort fetuses that have been determined to have Down’s Syndrome. Andrew is primarily concerned with the idea that the next step in this process might be parents choosing to abort fetuses that are shown to have the genetic markers associated with homosexuality.
My thoughts on reading the post, though, are directed to the issues I raised earlier this week asking whether parents should have the right to genetically design their children.
And, it leads to a few questions:
- If it became technologically possible for parents to determine at the embryonic stage that their child-to-be would have Down’s Syndrome, should they be allowed to utilize technology to alter that embryos genes to prevent the disease from ever occurring ?
- What if parents could genetically alter that same embryo to prevent blindness or deafness ?
Quite honestly, I cannot think of any ethical or reason why genetic manipulation, for lack of a better word, that was designed to ensure that a child who would have other wise been born with a disease, birth defect, or disability would instead live a normal, health life ?
Now, for some more difficult issues:
- Should parents be able to genetically alter an embryo to “remove”, or change, genetic markers that indicate the child might be homosexual ?
- Should parents be able to genetically alter an embryo to add characteristics — whether it be blond hair and blue hairs, greater intelligence, better eyesight ?
The issues here are, I will admit, more difficult. It does lead to accusations of eugenics. But, unlike some people, I am not afraid of technology or the ways that people might use it. I’d rather have individual parents making these decisions than the state.
Every time a medical technology issue comes up, it is discussed in the abstract, i.e. genetics modification means I will avoid Downs Syndrome in my children. Michael J. Fox will stop shaking. Christopher Reeve will get up and walk.
Comment by Hates Peach — January 10, 2007 @ 2:57 amWhat about side effects? Every commercial on TV for celebrex, Probium, the Purple Pill, etc. is replete with disclosures of “side effects include…” Why is genetic modification presented as the miracle cure? Which it most certainly is not. What if my child is spared Downs Syndrome but has three eyes? Should I praise the genetics modification miracle because my child can surely see better with three eyes rather than two?
Unethical scientists become mad scientists. And greedy mad scientists at that. And greedier madder scientists with all the government grants that will been looted as a result of their over hyped undocumented sales pitch.
What people with Downs would argue is that they have good lives, in fact, they often seem a lot happier in their lives that us “normal people”. If the argument is that this sort of genetic engineering prevents suffering, and they don’t feel that they are suffering, then isn’t the genetic modification really just because the parents are afraid of how a Downs child will affect THEIR lives?
Comment by Sian — January 10, 2007 @ 9:06 am