h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Medical science has advanced to the point where we can create embryos outside the womb and test them for genetic defects, fact.

There was a case in the news where the parents of a six year old girl with a fatal genetic dis-order asked doctors to determine which of 12 embryos fertilized in vitro was free from that dis-order. This embryo was then implanted. Stem cells from the umbilical blood of this baby were then infused into the little girl in the hope that this would correct the dis-order. Now the parents have one child they know does not have the dis-order and another which has a greater chance of a long and healthy life as a result of these actions.

Arguments are now raging about designer babies and being able to select for eye colour, intelligence etc. There is also the right to life argument and allowing nature to take its course. Like most things in life there exists the potential for good and bad, it comes down to the moral/ethical/philosophical question: Should we stop something that has a potentially good outcome, because if mis-used the outcome could be bad? Personally, I don't think so. I think we need to manage the potential for mis-use.

History suggests if mankind CAN do something, then it will be done. So I entirely agree with you on the need to "manage the potential for mis-use".

The problem we straight away bump into is the definition of "mis-use". You've probably seen by now the story today of the couple who want IVF treatment, specifying a girl baby, because they lost a daughter in an accident. They're threatening to go to court if their wishes aren't met, and they cite the Human Rights Act in their favour.

I have a problem with this. Presumably male embryos would be destroyed in favour of the female, and for no other reason other than that the parents really want a girl baby. However much we might sympathise with their loss, is this a good thing to do? Most Westerners find abhorrent the practice in some parts of the world of killing girl babies because sons are preferred; it seems to me that this would be little better. What do you think?

Instinctively I would tend to agree with you that this kind of 'designer' selection is in a whole different ball park from the 'medical' selection of the original case.

I guess it comes down to motivation as there is no distinction in the process. In case 1 the motivation appears two-fold, a) have a healthy baby which isn't going to suffer from this disease, b) use a non-invasive by-product of this birth to potentially save the life of another child. In case 2 the motivation seems to be the replacement of one lost child with another similar entity. I would be inclined to argue that the motivation in case 1 is primarily for the benefit of the child/children, in case 2 it is primarily for the benefit of the parents. Eventually it all comes down to a value judgement and mine says case 1 good, case 2 bad.

I come to the same conclusion as you - where the benefit appears to lie with the parents rather than the embryo, then the ethical waters are far muddier.

My instinct is that the legal process is not well suited to decide this sort of question, but inevitably that's the way it's going to happen. I'm bloody glad it won't be my sort of court that has to decide anything like this - I'll settle for the rights and wrongs of not having a tax disk on your car

This post has been removed.