Nearing designer babies

blackheart

unenlightened
Joined
Jul 22, 2004
Messages
8,633
Location
Chicago
http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/06/14/sex.selection.ap/index.html
Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex

Thursday, June 15, 2006; Posted: 1:47 p.m. EDT (17:47 GMT)

(AP) -- The Chinese want boys, and the Canadians want girls. If they have enough money, they come to the United States to choose the sex of their babies.

Well-off foreign couples are getting around laws banning sex selection in their home countries by coming to American soil -- where it's legal -- for medical procedures that can give them the boy, or girl, they want.

"Some people spend $50,000 to $70,000 for a BMW car and think nothing of it, but this is a life that's going to be with us forever," said Robert, an Australian who asked that his last name not be used to protect the family's privacy.

He and his wife, Joanna, have two boys. Now they want a girl. Australia allows gender selection of embryos only to avoid an inherited disease.

The United States' lack of regulation means a growing global market for a few fertility clinics. These businesses advertise in airline magazines or post Web sites aimed at luring clients worldwide.

Opponents say this amounts to medical tourism for designer babies and should awaken lawmakers.

But one doctor who offers embryo selection for about $20,000 says he is serving the marketplace and helping nature, not playing God. People will be less alarmed as sex selection becomes more routine, said Dr. Jeffrey Steinberg of the Fertility Institutes of Los Angeles, California, and Las Vegas, Nevada.

"It's new. It's scary. We understand that," Steinberg said. His Web site features an image of a Chinese flag alongside information about sex selection. "Near 100 percent (99.99 percent) effective gender selection methods to help balance families," the Web site promises.

"We basically want them to know it's available," Steinberg said of the international push. The Web page on sex selection generates 140,000 hits a month from China, he said, and the only country outpacing China's interest is Canada.

In a recent week, his clinics performed the procedure on eight women from abroad and consulted with 12 new foreign patients from China, Germany, Canada, the Czech Republic, Guam, Mexico and New Zealand, he said.

Most couples are affluent, Steinberg said. But some, like Australians Robert and Joanna, have moderate incomes. Robert, 30, works as a construction supervisor and Joanna, 27, is a part-time secretary.

The couple visited Steinberg's Los Angeles clinic in May and, including airfare, will spend half their annual income to have a female embryo implanted in Joanna's uterus.

The procedure, which Steinberg also offers as an add-on service for infertile couples, determines the gender of a batch of fertilized eggs and implants only embryos of the wanted sex. This process -- called preimplantation genetic diagnosis, or PGD -- is more widely used to screen for genetic diseases.

"The Chinese like boys. Canadians like girls. Every country is different," he said, adding that the boy-girl preference balance out at 50-50 when all his clients are added together.

Foes call it "consumer eugenics" and say it opens the door to a future where parents will choose their babies' hair color, eye color and potential to grow tall enough to play basketball. U.S. doctors are catering to the same gender bias that has led to female infanticide in China and India, opponents said.

"What you're saying is it's better you don't exist than be the wrong gender for my family. And that's a shocking assertion," said Matthew Eppinette, director of research at the Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity, a Christian bioethics group.

The method can prevent sex-linked inherited diseases. But when it's used solely to help a couple get a coveted girl or round out a family of daughters with a wanted son, the practice is controversial, even among doctors who specialize in reproductive medicine.

"We don't do that. Sex is not a disease," snapped Yury Verlinsky, director of the Reproductive Genetics Institute in Chicago, Illinois.

The American Society for Reproductive Medicine says sex selection of embryos is clearly ethical when the method is used to prevent genetic disease. But the professional group discourages its use for choosing one gender over another. The group says the practice risks reinforcing sexism in society and diverts medical resources from real medical needs.

While many countries prohibit sex selection techniques without a medical purpose, the United States has no such ban.

"We are one of those few countries in the world where sex selection using PGD isn't regulated," said Susannah Baruch, director of the Reproductive Genetics and Public Policy Center at Johns Hopkins University. "It's certainly a magnet for couples for whom this is important."

The Johns Hopkins center is leading an effort to collect data on how many sex selection procedures are performed in the United States and why they are performed. No one tracks those numbers now.

Another group, the Center for Genetics and Society, is calling for regulation of the practice and its marketing.

"Right now the market is driving practices rather than social and ethical concerns," said Sujatha Jesudason of the center. "People who have money to pay for it are getting the children of their choice."

Steinberg said his clinic requires international couples to be in the United States for only five days. His office can work with a clinic in the couple's home country to monitor the woman's preparatory injections with fertility drugs that stimulate egg production.

"Even though it's illegal there, the illegal part happens here," he said. Once the woman produces eggs, she and her husband fly to the United States. In the U.S. clinic, the eggs are extracted, fertilized with the husband's sperm and monitored while they grow to eight cells each.

A lab technician extracts one cell from each embryo for genetic analysis. If it's the preferred gender, it will be implanted in the client's womb along with one or two other embryos, all selected for gender, to increase chances of a successful pregnancy. The client decides whether unused embryos will be frozen, donated for research or destroyed.

The Australians, Robert and Joanna, see gender selection as no different ethically and morally from in vitro fertilization for infertile couples. They reject the term "designer babies."

"It's not like we want some 6-foot-tall, blue-eyed Brad Pitt lookalike," Robert said. "I naturally have something and my wife naturally has something and it's taken out of our bodies and then you're getting a doctor to mix it together and put it back in. ... We're not messing around with God the creator."

Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

So is this ethical, choosing your baby's gender just for the sack of gender and not to prevent disease? I think this road will lead us to a future similiar in the movie Gattaca, where only the "genetic elite" have the best jobs.
 
Ooh. Gattaca is cool. It even has an argument named after it.
 
Why can't they just be happy with a kid, boy or girl?

"Well, mom, how was I born?"

"Well, first we spent $70,000 to make sure you were a boy, then we..."

We don't need to start messing around with stuff like this, I don't see why people need it.
 
I think that genetic selection of traits will never really take off. I don't want a child who is genetically superior, with good looks and strength and intelligence; I want a child who carries my genes and resembles me. That is what parenthood is about.
 
Eran of Arcadia said:
I think that genetic selection of traits will never really take off. I don't want a child who is genetically superior, with good looks and strength and intelligence; I want a child who carries my genes and resembles me. That is what parenthood is about.

But then the question comes into play if you had the opportunity to provide your child with the fullest potential possible, is it ok if you don't?
 
Sure it is. Will being stronger and whatnot necessarily make him happier? It is perfectly natural to want to spread on one's genes. Otherwise all we are doing is acting as surrogate or foster parents to someone else's genes.
 
Gabryel Karolin said:
How about selecting which of your genes you want to pass on then? Excluding all negative ones etc.

The onlhy flaw with letting people decide of their kid's genes is that some wackos are going to create weirdos (same people that give funny names to their kids).
Other than that, with rather responsible people, I really do not see anything wrong with selecting the genes for your kid, even selecting what he will look like.
As Eran pointed out, most people want a kid that look like them anyway.
And the argument that selecting genes will reduce diversity is moot: entire population share similar genetic traits yet nobody has accused them of lacking genetic diversity. (think Scandinavians and blond hair/blue eyes, Asians and "small" size, black hair, etc.)
 
Eran of Arcadia said:
I think that genetic selection of traits will never really take off. I don't want a child who is genetically superior, with good looks and strength and intelligence; I want a child who carries my genes and resembles me. That is what parenthood is about.
I agree with this statement. Plus I feel that this is too closely to playing God and thus I cannot approve the use of tampering with our genetics and sex.
 
CivGeneral said:
I agree with this statement. Plus I feel that this is too closely to playing God and thus I cannot approve the use of tampering with our genetics and sex.

How is selecting the genes of your kid playing God but breeding domestic animals is not?
 
Masquerouge said:
How is selecting the genes of your kid playing God but breeding domestic animals is not?
Selecting genes of one's child is like playing God because youre manipulating the genes of that individual and then implaning them via IVF method.

However breeding domestic animals is not because it is done natrualy and with the breeders encuraging animals to mate naturaly.
 
CivGeneral said:
Selecting genes of one's child is like playing God because youre manipulating the genes of that individual and then implaning them via IVF method.

However breeding domestic animals is not because it is done natrualy and with the breeders encuraging animals to mate naturaly.

So to you it's just a question of methodology, correct? Trying to select the genes you want through mating is okay, but selecting them in a lab is wrong?

I'm not sure I see a huge difference. One is simply more efficient.
 
This kind of thing certainly doesn't sit right with me. Certainly not anything i'd persue.

Still my personal funny feelings aside, I can't think of any reason to call it wrong or immoral, so those who want it can go through with it.

I do have one very silly scenario in the back of my head this could lead to, but it's so far-fetched and paranoid it'll never happen. I'm sure it only keeps popping up because of my own personal insecurities.
 
I shall have two kids....one done the good ol' fasined way and the other genetically enhanced. So the normal one will have inferiority complex and well it would be an interesting experiment I shall not describe in detail.
 
Masquerouge said:
So to you it's just a question of methodology, correct? Trying to select the genes you want through mating is okay, but selecting them in a lab is wrong?

I'm not sure I see a huge difference. One is simply more efficient.
Here is the way I see it, There would be discrimination and predujudces between designer babies and normal babies. I do forsee that normal babies would recive the blunt end of the intolerance stick because they are deamed inferior to the designer babies.
 
CivGeneral said:
Here is the way I see it, There would be discrimination and predujudces between designer babies and normal babies. I do forsee that normal babies would recive the blunt end of the intolerance stick because they are deamed inferior to the designer babies.

But how could you tell a designer baby apart from a normal baby?
 
Cleric said:
I shall have two kids....one done the good ol' fasined way and the other genetically enhanced. So the normal one will have inferiority complex and well it would be an interesting experiment I shall not describe in detail.

Masquerouge said:
But how could you tell a designer baby apart from a normal baby?

The movie Gattaca explains these two situations very well. Employers can screen you via blood tests and pee tests to see if your genes are up to standards because as explained by the movie, no one wants to hire someone with a genetic defect that will make them vulernable to heart disease and have a probable death at a young age. Employers would want the genetically intelligent elite and healthy.

But also in the movie, there is one brother who is naturally conceived and one who was genetically "enhanced". The natural brother did have many doors closed to him, but through hard work and making a deal to assume the identify of a genetic elite, the natural one managed to beat out other genetic elites because he had the will and desire.
 
blackheart said:
The movie Gattaca explains these two situations very well. Employers can screen you via blood tests and pee tests to see if your genes are up to standards because as explained by the movie, no one wants to hire someone with a genetic defect that will make them vulernable to heart disease and have a probable death at a young age. Employers would want the genetically intelligent elite and healthy.

Even admitting a movie can be seen as the authority on how to tell if someone has been genetically modified, I still do not see how you can tell that someone has perfect genes because he's been modified or simply because he got lucky at birth.
And I also, provided everybody has access to that technology, do not see anything wrong in trying to suppress defective genes. And employers already want the intelligent, healthy elite.

blackheart said:
But also in the movie, there is one brother who is naturally conceived and one who was genetically "enhanced". The natural brother did have many doors closed to him, but through hard work and making a deal to assume the identify of a genetic elite, the natural one managed to beat out other genetic elites because he had the will and desire.

Ah. What if will and desire were genetically transmitted? :P
 
Back
Top Bottom