AUTHOR: Redaspie DATE: Thursday, June 22, 2006 ----- BODY:

This is a little on the late side, as this particular issue appears to have already fallen off the nation's news headlines since it first reared its head a few days ago. British medical researchers have discovered a way to screen IVF embryos for a much wider range of disabilities than was previously possible. This development has been welcomed by many, including the parents of disabled children, and criticised by such organisations as CORE (Comment on Reproductive Ethics), who argued that this represents another step towards the creation of designer babies and a society where any 'imperfection' ceases to be tolerated.

There is a grain of truth to this - eugenicist ideas are still about, although their influence may have been overstated by some. Nonetheless if one opens up New Scientist, you will frequently find articles talking up the possibility of a future where everyone is more athletic, better-looking, smarter and so on and so forth. Personally, I wish for a future where no fetus or embryo is ever aborted or discarded purely and simply because it has an impairment or potential impairment. However, I disagree with the blanket opposition to this development, for two reasons. Firstly, because the kinds of disabilities we are talking about are largely life-threatening ones; such as muscular dystrophy (which results in an average life expectancy of 17 years) rather than ones that are not potentially fatal or cause any actual pain, such as autism. Yes, one could argue that that for that short time the person with the condition has a life worth living, and certainly no one in their right mind would argue that children with such conditions should be killed. However this has to be balanced against the fact that parents with children who have such a condition are trapped in a situation where they are watching their child gradually die - a horrific situation for any parent and certainly not one into which they should be forced.

And this leads on to the second point, which is that to oppose such developments is to deny the right of parents to decide whether they are capable or in a position to, or even willing to bring up a child with an impairment. I strongly take the view that it is up to the parents involved to decide, as they are after all not merely going to be deciding the future of the fetus itself, but of their own lives, which will be drastically affected by whether the child they are going to have is or is not disabled. It is a choice that they should have a right to make, not one made for them by doctors, campaigners of one sort or another, or anyone else. And let's remember that this goes both ways (or it least it should do). As I noted recently on Amanda Bagg's blog, one of the best things that I can forsee happening in the future is if two parents with a specific 'disability' go to an IVF clinic because they want to ensure that their child also has their 'disability'. It is likely, given the prevailing attitude amongst doctors, that they will be refused, and the ensuing court case might very well have a great effect on the way these issues are percieved.

And this goes on to the final point that I would like to make here, and it is one that is likely to cause some argument. It struck me, as I was thinking about the possibilities of disabled parents using IVF to ensure their child is like them, that 'eugenics' in itself may not be the problem or danger that some disabled activists make them out to be so much as the context in which eugencics is practiced. After all, all eugenics is, to quote the Chambers Dictionary, is: "pertaining to genetic improvement of a race by judicious mating". It depends entirely on the 'improvement' one wishes to promote. So if disabled parents want to ensure their child inherits their disability, or a particular group such as the 'deaf culture' participants, wish to ensure that sufficient numbers of children like them are born by using such techniques as IVF, isn't that 'eugenics' as much as the use of IVF to screen out disabilities? Personally, I can see no objection to such clearly eugenicist practices being used to maintain diversity among the human gene pool, something that surely benefits everyone.

--------