British fertility clinics raise scientific and ethical objections over patients sending embryos’ genetic data abroad for analysis
Couples undergoing IVF in the UK are exploiting an apparent legal loophole to rank their embryos based on genetic predictions of IQ, height and health, the Guardian has learned.
The controversial screening technique, which scores embryos based on their DNA, is not permitted at UK fertility clinics and critics have raised scientific and ethical objections, saying the method is unproven. But under data protection laws, patients can – and in some cases have – demanded their embryos’ raw genetic data and sent it abroad for analysis in an effort to have smarter, healthier children.
Dr Cristina Hickman, a senior embryologist and founder of Avenues fertility clinic in London, said rapid advances in embryo screening techniques and the recent launch of several US companies offering so-called polygenic screening had left clinics facing “legal and ethical confusion”.
I know ‘slippery slope’ is a logical fallacy, but I think it’s applicable here.
We scan for disease, easy sell. But since we’re doing it anyway, let’s also include physical defects. Why not also include autism? I mean we have the data already, and these parents are paying for the service, why shouldn’t we give them that information? And if we’re doing all of that, why not also give them data on life expectancy and intelligence? Maybe physical traits - after all, they’d really prefer a blond haired, blue eyed child.
I mean, we already scan for down syndrome and the like. I don’t think we’re locked onto this slippery slope just from that.
I agree incentives are strong to go down the slope if we make parents pay for this data. But that’s a choice we make: let’s include disease screening as part of baseline healthcare, but make people pay (or otherwise regulate) if they want the additional data to screen for more precise things.
The discussion of what’s disease will (remain) contentious. But I don’t think it has to be slippery if we are careful about the incentives. Society at large seems capable of valuing diversity.
Isn’t that just worse than giving the data to everyone, though? The more expensive you make it, the more of an exclusively ‘rich people’ service it becomes. As if kids with rich parents don’t already have enough advantages in life, let’s make sure they’re physically peak, too?
I mentioned regulation in that sentence and you '…'ed it out… Clearly I’m ok with putting in guard rails, and I see no practical barriers to doing so. Feels a little bad faith to ignore the counter argument that’s right there.
(Severe edit cause I confused the conversation)
You said ‘or otherwise regulate’, not ‘and regulate’, so I logically assumed you were making two independent proposals and chose to respond to one of them, omitting the other for clarity.
I don’t even think it’s a counter-argument, really. As soon as prosperity becomes a factor, it’s a “rich people only” feature, regardless of what other guardrails are in place.
Most (all?) healthcare has been rich people only before it became broadly available. Usually we don’t accept that as a reason to ban it though; what’s so different here?
Not in the UK, which this thread is about.
The NHS provides healthcare free at the point of service, for all.
Not everywhere is the United States of Fascist America.
I was under the impression that we still see UK folks flying across the world to skip queues, personalize medicine, and/or get treatments that haven’t yet moved across the pond? Apologies for my ignorance.
Eugenics aren’t suddenly okay if they’re only accessible to some people. Healthcare on the other hand should be available to everyone but it’s still a net positive even if it isn’t available to everyone.
I guess my confusion is that some things in this thread are definitely not healthcare (blue eyes), and some definitely are (prevent sickle cell). I’d like the things that are to be available to all.
That has its own slope of discrimination from data due to being able to pay or not. If we determine a certain thing is okay ethically to screen for, anyone should be able to get it. Bad enough to have one gray area, we don’t need a gradient of gray everywhere.
Seems fine to me; both show that the slippery slope really isn’t inevitable, no?