By Dani Hicks
In the past decade, reproductive medicine has had a positive impact on the lives of many men and women around the world. From test tube babies to embryo selection (used to prevent genetic defects in unborn children), the field of medicine has catapulted the area of childbirth into new heights. Lately, the field has been getting a lot of publicity since the incredible story of the octuplet mother surfaced. Now, critics argue that we’ve taken things too far with a new technology that literally allows parents to design their ideal baby.
The technique known as pre-implantation diagnosis or PGD was originally created in the ‘90s to combat genetic diseases in embryos. Couples who plan on conceiving through in vitro now have the option of changing their prospective child’s gender, skin, eye and hair color, as well as other traits such as intelligence and athletic ability, for approximately $18,000. This has sparked a heated ethics debate between people and scientists who argue that they have no desire to create “designer babies.” In addition, some say that this procedure will create genetically enriched individuals who are projected as superior to the average human being. Another argument is that parents and scientists alike are using such techniques to “play God.” Part of the joy of becoming a parent is chatting with your significant other about whose nose the baby will have and if they will have the famous family ears. Pre-implantation diagnosis seems to suck the beauty out of childbirth; that moment days later when the baby opens their lids for the first time and the accumulating pressure is exhaled as it is discovered her eyes are blue. Those that argue against PGD say that it objectifies the baby, bringing it to the same level as simply choosing between pigments to paint a room.
Undeniably, PGD and similar techniques can be used for the greater good, particularly after the technology has been perfected in the future. For example, for parents that suffer from genetic diseases, it will come as a blessing to know that PGD technology will one day be able to prevent passing them on to their children. Kathy Hudson, director of the Genetics and Public Policy Center in Washington, D.C said, “We’re not even close to having that technology in hand to be able to do it right now, and it would be ethically unacceptable to try it when it’s unsafe.”
“Designer Babies: Can We Now Play God.” Www.testcountry.com. 5 Mar. 09. 6 Mar. 09 http://hometestingblog.testcountry.com/?p=1149.
Ritter, Malcolm. Www.discoverychannel.com. 13 May 08. 6 Mar. 09 <http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/05/13/modified-human-embryo.html>.
