custom kids
clearly, things are getting way out of hand. the british paper, times online, is reporting that the ability for prospective parents undergoing ivf (in vitro fertilization) to custom order their child is nearing reality. the article states, "couples will be able to choose donated sperm or eggs to create their designer child, under proposals published by the fertility watchdog. Characteristics such as height, eye colour and intelligence could be selected if women undergoing fertility treatment are given more freedom to pick the donated sperm, egg or embryo."
in many ways, this practice of selecting features for "special order" babies has been in practice for some time. as the paper reports, "The practice of screening donors for desirable characteristics is widespread in the US, where couples can pay up to $25,000 to secure the right type of donor. In America, donors are routinely screened according for high intelligence, family medical history and physical traits such as height, weight and eye, skin and hair colours." the concern for the parents, of course, is to make sure that the donated eggs "match" the characteristics of the family. according to specialists in the field, a child who looks drastically different than other family members may stand out and, therefore, have a difficult time fitting in as a regular family member. but many are opposed to the practice on moral and ethical grounds: "The controversial proposals are part of a public consultation launched yesterday by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA). But critics are concerned that the proposal could lead to more couples demanding 'designer' babies and to parents having unrealistic expectations of the resulting children a point accepted by the authority in its consultation document."
we don't have to go far to note the dangerous territory that is being tread upon with this kind of practice. many, myself included, have always been wary of the general acceptance of the practice of ivf to begin with. yes, there are millions of wonderful, loving and qualified parents who have undergone ivf, and many have successfully given birth to healthy children, but at what point do we stop? it is a tough and emotional question, but it is a question that every person who desires children must ask themselves. our answers could lead us down a path from which we cannot return and which we cannot alter.
the practice of "creating" designer children in which eye color, height, disposition or intelligence is a very natural next step. if, in this game some call "playing God" we can eliminate problems in children before they materialize, why shouldn't we? referring to the rationale of a similar practice dating back to the 19th century called eugenics, philip kennicott of the washington times wrote in an april, 2004 article, "Mankind, looked at objectively, could make itself healthier: by having healthier babies, tracing and eliminating genetic defects and preventing disease and 'deviancy'--alcoholism, prostitution and other 'urban' ills--from spreading throughout the society and from one generation to the next." these rationalities described by kennicott are not unfamiliar...we hear them all the time related to need for not only ivf selections but also genetic engineering. after all, we could end up with a world full of highly intelligent, superior members of the human race. sound familiar? it should. kennicott's article was referring to pre-world war II germany. what started out as a desire to end suffering through birth defects and genetically passed on deceases resulted in the quest for the perfect human...adolph hitler's aryan race.
kennicott goes on to explain that "the rise of eugenics, leads inexorably, methodically and incrementally to the Nazi era of forced sterilization, euthanasia and, finally, concentration camps, mass killings and the ovens of Auschwitz." further, he explains that "at every step in this tragic progress a moral threshold is crossed. Why it was crossed, then and there, in Hitler's Germany, is open to endless debate. But as the [holocaust] museum's director, Sara J. Bloomfield, says in the catalogue to the exhibition, 'During the Holocaust, every institution established to uphold civilized values failed--the academy, the media, the judiciary, law enforcement, the churches, the government and, yes, the medical and scientific disciplines as well.'" apparently, we in the 21st century have learned very little from history.
many deny any possibility of this becoming a slippery slope issue. i say, tell that to 5.6 million jews.
in many ways, this practice of selecting features for "special order" babies has been in practice for some time. as the paper reports, "The practice of screening donors for desirable characteristics is widespread in the US, where couples can pay up to $25,000 to secure the right type of donor. In America, donors are routinely screened according for high intelligence, family medical history and physical traits such as height, weight and eye, skin and hair colours." the concern for the parents, of course, is to make sure that the donated eggs "match" the characteristics of the family. according to specialists in the field, a child who looks drastically different than other family members may stand out and, therefore, have a difficult time fitting in as a regular family member. but many are opposed to the practice on moral and ethical grounds: "The controversial proposals are part of a public consultation launched yesterday by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA). But critics are concerned that the proposal could lead to more couples demanding 'designer' babies and to parents having unrealistic expectations of the resulting children a point accepted by the authority in its consultation document."
we don't have to go far to note the dangerous territory that is being tread upon with this kind of practice. many, myself included, have always been wary of the general acceptance of the practice of ivf to begin with. yes, there are millions of wonderful, loving and qualified parents who have undergone ivf, and many have successfully given birth to healthy children, but at what point do we stop? it is a tough and emotional question, but it is a question that every person who desires children must ask themselves. our answers could lead us down a path from which we cannot return and which we cannot alter.
the practice of "creating" designer children in which eye color, height, disposition or intelligence is a very natural next step. if, in this game some call "playing God" we can eliminate problems in children before they materialize, why shouldn't we? referring to the rationale of a similar practice dating back to the 19th century called eugenics, philip kennicott of the washington times wrote in an april, 2004 article, "Mankind, looked at objectively, could make itself healthier: by having healthier babies, tracing and eliminating genetic defects and preventing disease and 'deviancy'--alcoholism, prostitution and other 'urban' ills--from spreading throughout the society and from one generation to the next." these rationalities described by kennicott are not unfamiliar...we hear them all the time related to need for not only ivf selections but also genetic engineering. after all, we could end up with a world full of highly intelligent, superior members of the human race. sound familiar? it should. kennicott's article was referring to pre-world war II germany. what started out as a desire to end suffering through birth defects and genetically passed on deceases resulted in the quest for the perfect human...adolph hitler's aryan race.
kennicott goes on to explain that "the rise of eugenics, leads inexorably, methodically and incrementally to the Nazi era of forced sterilization, euthanasia and, finally, concentration camps, mass killings and the ovens of Auschwitz." further, he explains that "at every step in this tragic progress a moral threshold is crossed. Why it was crossed, then and there, in Hitler's Germany, is open to endless debate. But as the [holocaust] museum's director, Sara J. Bloomfield, says in the catalogue to the exhibition, 'During the Holocaust, every institution established to uphold civilized values failed--the academy, the media, the judiciary, law enforcement, the churches, the government and, yes, the medical and scientific disciplines as well.'" apparently, we in the 21st century have learned very little from history.
many deny any possibility of this becoming a slippery slope issue. i say, tell that to 5.6 million jews.
Labels: David C. Price
posted by DAVID C. PRICE at 11/15/2004 01:01:00 AM
|
3 Comments:
Eugenics has been thoroughly discredited, as is right. But eugenics as you discuss is a state mandated form of controlling the population genetics.
On an individual basis, we all perform a sort of 'gene selection' when we choose a mate. Knowingly or not, we are already selecting for such traits as intelligence, height, and skin and eye color.
From your post, I was unclear on whether you were talking about selecting the donor of the egg or sperm, or selecting the individual egg or sperm cell. The former being not different than what couples do all the time, the latter certainly having ethical concerns.
IVF has been of great benefit to many, not the least of which are the children born to parents using IVF.
Frankly, I'm not concerned about the actual process of Eugenics because, as a general practice, it isn't an issue. However, what I am concerned about is the negative consequences that could grow out of the current IVF practices just as they did with what seemed a beneficial practice in the 19th and early 20th centuries. What I'm talking about are principles, not procedures, per se, and I would be very wary of equating the selecting of specific characteristics or traits for a child with choosing a mate...I see very little connection. Normally, when someone selects a mate they are initially attracted by appearance perhaps (if one wants to refer that as genetic selection), but before a mate is actually chosen, intangibles such as personality, disposition, and of course, love arguably play a much larger and more important role. In addition, few people, if any, select a mate based on what their future children will look like. If it possibly relates to selecting the traits for a child, the aforementioned intangibles are all unavailable when making a selection regarding sperms or eggs, whether through selection of donors or specific sperm or egg (both rely on the same motive and rationale), thereby, in my opinion, negating the relevance of the analogy.
I have not denied that many have benefited from IVF. I have friends who have benefited from it and have not cast judgment on their personal decisions. That someone has benefited from something does not, however, negate ethical questions involved with any procedure, nor does it negate those who have experienced negative results. For instance, some could argue the benefits of euthanasia, but that does not erase the serious ethical concerns nor the many other problems associated with it. Therefore, as I suggested, one must deal with and answer the ethical questions before undergoing any procedure.
just watched an update on one of those successful ivf procedures...the mccoy septuplets. most of the children have significant health problems, one of the worst being a severely handicapped boy who is undergoing extensive surgeries which will include years and years of physical therapy and, as his mother said, "an uncertain future." it is difficult to watch this and feel good about it and not at least wonder about the wisdom in all of this. unfortunately, I'm afraid that we have a higher risk of things going wrong when we take things into our own hands that were perhaps never intended to have in our hands. just one opinion.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home