General Chat

I don't know. Perhaps to prevent a baby being born with a serious genetic disorder (like haemophilia) , but creating matching siblings is a different matter. I went to school with a girl who had been born because her parents hoped for a match to help her older brother. This was before all this genetic testing and selection could be done. Doctors told them they had a 1/4 chance of making a baby that was a genetic match, and that's the chance they took. She wasn't a match and her brother died. Is what they did more or less 'wrong' than creating a designer baby?

When IVF had its first success back in the 1970s it was only a matter of time before scientists developed the process further. Unfortunately it would be very difficult to put this particular genie back in the bottle.....

Ive read alot about this and nothing would ever convince me that its right.:-)))

off the BBC website..some info How is a 'designer baby' created? An embryo is created by in-vitro fertilization (IVF) A single cell is removed from that embryo within the first 5 days of its creation The cell is genetically tested The parents decide whether to discard the embryo or implant it in the mother's womb This genetic selection of embryos is called pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD). There are a number of reasons parents may choose to select an embryo in this way: To screen for diseases such as Huntingdon's disease and cystic fibrosis or genetic conditions such as Down's syndrome To create a healthy baby to treat a sick sibling To select the sex of a future child (this is illegal in the UK) Case study In 2002, a British couple, Michelle and Jayson Whitaker, sought permission from the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) to genetically select an embryo which would be a near perfect match to their four year old son Charlie who had a life threatening blood disorder. The HFEA refused permission (although the UK's fertility watchdog has since relaxed its rules on the procedure) and the Whitakers went to America for IVF treatment. Ethical problems It sounds a brilliant way of saving a child's life, doesn't it? Not everyone agrees - many people say that this process is unethical, and the start of a slippery slope that leads to human cloning. One problem can be dismissed at once is the worry that the new baby will be subject to hurtful medical procedures; it won't. The cells required are taken from the umbilical cord, and nothing is done to the baby itself. It treats the new baby as a commodity The question to be asked is 'Is this a wanted child or is it a child that's only being made to be a donor to its older brother?' If it was the latter, then the baby would be being treated as a commodity. To see how wrong that would be let's invent an extreme case: If a child was being created just to provide a cure and was going to be sent off for adoption after the treatment was complete, that would clearly be very wrong. But in this case the child is clearly going to be a much loved member of the family. The new baby will be loved for its own sake, and the special techniques being used are being used to bring additional benefits from the birth. If the new baby can't provide suitable cells for the treatment the parents will be disappointed that there won't be a cure, they won't be disappointed in their new child. So in this case (and in any case that would get HFEA permission) there is no risk of the baby being seen as a commodity. And consider this too: Parents often have mixed motives for having a child - maybe they want to provide company for an existing child, or to improve their own relationship, or satisfy the in-laws, and while we might raise an eyebrow we wouldn't say that their action was morally wrong. It's murder Most people who oppose abortion do so because it involves, in their view, killing a person. They believe that this technique too inevitably kills people and that this outweighs any benefits there might be. During the process a number of embryos will be tested to see if they are suitable. Some embryos will be not be suitable. They will be disposed of. Pro-life people believe that human life begins the moment the sperm fertilises the egg. This means that every unsuitable embryo that is disposed of is a person who is killed. To put it in an extreme way: each fertilised embryo will be assessed by the scientists. It will only be allowed to live if it is a good match; if it is a bad match it will be denied its right to life. If you believe that life begins at conception, then this argument is conclusive, and the technique is morally wrong. If you don't believe that life begins at conception then this argument has no weight and you can move on to look at other arguments. It's a slippery slope Next stop real designer babies - chosen for eye colour or intelligence or some other parental whim. This procedure is very expensive, and very gruelling on the parents involved. It's hard to imagine anyone willingly going through it for fun. And even if they did, they would never get permission from the HFEA to use the procedure frivolously. However, this could become a worry in a country where regulation of such techniques is less rigorous.

Definitely not.

Yes im for it in certain circumstances Only in the circumstances where having a child of a certain sex will cause the child to be born with an atrocious condition which shortens the childs life, or makes the childs life one which is filled with pain. Some diseases and conditions run either down the male or females side. Also as long as the parents would love and wellcome another child (and the majority would) Im all for them to have a child by choosing its sex etc when this also can be used to save another child of theirs. I would do ANYTHING to save a child of mine, including having another child for that purpose. I wouldnt love that child any less if the treatment failed. It would seem to me that it would have been fate to have this other child. In fairness, many people would change their minds if it was their child dying. Its easy to say no to it if you are childless or have a healthy child. Im against designer babies for cultural or fickle reasons. Most (not all) parents yearn for one of each, my friend has 2 boys, would crave for a girl, but has come to the conclusion that she has 2 healthy sons so be it. Elaine x

Against! Complete and utterly against! Julie xxx

I think that we should rename Lucia from Wallbank to Thinktank LOL Generally I am against it, but specifically if you can 'loose' or 'modify' a gene that will give a person a greater chance of lack of disabiling genetic abnormality then it has to be a good thing - doesnt it?

Against, Its wrong!!!

Babies are perfectly designed by nature. They have big seals' eyes to look appealing to their frazzled parents and all their bodily functions work overtime. If someone could design a baby that had a volume control on it, that would be a boon though. nell

Hi Ginny..... long time no see.... Sue [ maybe her hubby bought her a lap top for her birthday ....... gggrrrrrrrr]

Sometimes some couples need to be able to choose the sex of their baby for genetic reasons.

Daisy, you agree with me :-) Some would also like designer babies because they want to be able to choose the sex of their child. I'm sorry I don't agree with that.

I've read the book................... Didn't see the ending coming.

Didn't read the book - saw the tv series - still can't understand how J.C came back as a Staff Nurse at Holby City

Seriously though. Tricky one this but I really think, hand on heart that if I had a desperately sick child who might only be saved with the help of a sibling then yes I would. Daisy

Against Val

I got bored after the first page lol

She's a speed reader! I had it read to me for 4 years and still didn't finish it - and it was only the New Testament!!! lol Daisy

Read 'My Sister's Keeper' by Jodi Picoult - a book about a child created to 'save' her sister. Extremely thought provoking.