While the concept of preimplantation genetic diagnosis is not a new one, it’s now widespread availability is a relatively modern advancement. The procedure can be done in a standard clinical setting and despite many beliefs; it is not preformed while the actual mother is pregnant but rather on invetro cells. Utilizing PGD allows potential parents to select embryos that are free from genetic defects and abnormalities including Huntington’s disease, cystic fibrosis, Down syndrome and certain types of hemophilia. Most often parents that opt to use PGD suffer from these illnesses themselves or are aware that there is a predisposition in their own genes that could put their children at risk. Having the ability to know that their children will be able to live without the ailments of these diseases is a huge relief to virtually any parent and can provide a much needed assurance throughout the medical field.
With all this well and good, where does all the hubbub come from you might ask? In their article Genetic Diagnosis of Embryos: Clear Explanation, not Rhetoric, is needed, Drs. Chantal Bouffard and Stephane Viville discuss how they believe a “particular… use of words and concepts have distorted public and scientific discourse” (Bouffard, 1 of 7). This mostly concerns the seemingly innocent terms “eugenics” and “perfect baby” that have been connected to the very different subject of preimplantation genetic diagnosis. In the eyes of the science fiction fed public of today these terms can summon to mind horrors of a designer race, and even eventual genetic discrimination ala the sleeper film GATTACA. With this disposition it is not difficult to see how the reality of PGD could easily be confused with the fictional applications of eugenics. Further the use of this language serves as a catalyst to specific groups. Notably the sensational terms draw the excitement of the media, whose reach then dominoes into the government; while the truth of PGD is largely only recognized by the couples who seek to apply the practice to secure their family. As the government is led into the paranoia from the “eugenic” veil, laws are made hastily, a key example being France’s Bioethics Law 94-654. This law “prohibits testing for more than one genetic condition… even when there is a known risk for more than one condition” (Bouffard, 3 of 7).
With fears spurred by misused language guiding such impactful restrictions Bouffard and Viville maintain that the differences between “designer babies” and PGD needs to be brought more definitely into the spotlight. PGD is designed to divert disease and there are many limitations in its use that keep it from being the terror that many believe eugenics could be. For PGD to become eugenic in nature its entire process would have to become far less complex and much more attainable to the public as a whole. As of now, PGD is far too expensive for common use and too easily regulated to become the threat some politicians are hailing it as.
To be completely honest, Genetic Diagnosis of Embryos does not attempt to pass off PGD as a completely flawless angel of scientific progress. The authors want to be very clear that PGD is not eugenics and is not a route to the formation of the perfect child, and they press the need for reliance on factual evidence. Bouffard and Viville call to mind the real issues surrounding PGD that are being overshadowed by the fantastical elements of the eugenics argument. Beyond potential promises that are essential to the development of numerous medical fields, PGD is absolutely not without its risk of failure. Certainly there is also the potential for PGD abuse in the future, specifically with regards to its outer ability to allow for gender selection. Other important reserves that are diverted by the use of misleading language are the prospect of “reproductive tourism,” which could occur when the procedure costs less in some countries than in others, and the lack of long-term follow up regarding the children birthed through PGD.
Overall I am very intrigued by the reality of PGD. I know that one day; after college, as my mother has so strongly stamped into me, that I would like to have a family of my own. I would greatly appreciate having the ability to know that the child I would bring into the world could live a life free of disease and the struggles that face one with a severe illness. I believe that Drs. Bouffard and Viville are very right when they say that evidence should be the defining factor behind the future of PGD usage and regulation. Far too often people let a fear of the unknown or the complex restrict true needed progress into the future, and I hope that through informative articles such as this, confining language will not be all that is seen by the public when faced with PGD. With no amount of cliché intended I will end with the statement that the future is only a day away, and that it is our duty to make sure the door is not closed on development.
Chose Your Words Wisely.
Sources:
Bouffard C, Viville S, Knoppers B. Genetic diagnosis of embryos: Clear explanation, not rhetoric, is needed. CMAJ: Canadian Medical Association Journal [serial online]. September 15, 2009;181(6/7):387-391. Available from: Academic Search Premier, Ipswich, MA. Accessed September 12, 2010.
http://ehis.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=9&hid=114&sid=f286c55b-c0d0-4e74-8e12-cf71ea9a2d0e%40sessionmgr114
Photo: google.com/images
No comments:
Post a Comment