Preimplantation Diagnosis Raises Ethical Concerns

Gina Kolata published an article in The New York Times on February 3, 2014 concerning the ethics on embryonic genetic testing. Amanda Baxley was diagnosed with Gerstmann-Straussler-Scheinker disease(GSS). GSS is a rare inherited neurological disease. People with GSS usually pass away between 35 and 60 years of age. The first symptom is a loss of motor control. The person begins to stumble, dementia sets in, then they lose their eyesight and hearing. Within five years of the first symptoms, they pass away. Amanda Baxley turned to in vitro fertilization and preimplantation diagnosis in order to have children that would not carry the gene for GSS. In vitro fertilization costs about $20,000. By testing the embryo for disease, it eliminates the decision of having to terminate the pregnancy when the fetus tests positive later on. Advocates for the disabled are very much against genetic testing if a positive result will result in the destruction of an embryo or fetus. Ethic problems arise when embryos will not be implanted inside the mother. The Society of Assisted Reproductive Technology states that it is ethically justified to prevent disease. Some believe that it is even a person's moral obligation to prevent disease in their children if they have the means to do so. Others argue that if people like Amanda Baxley had been tested she would have never been born. These same people say that it is even more ethically incorrect to terminate embryos and fetuses that have diseases that will only occur later in life. There has been an increase in embryo preimplantation diagnosis recently. The Reproductive Genetics Institute reported a 40% increase in their caseload. In a recent national survey, Dr. Robert Klitzman found only 6% of internists had ever mentioned preimplantation diagnosis to their patients. Only 7% of internists say they feel qualified on the subject. There is an overall lack of knowledge about preimplantation diagnosis in the medical field.

During in vitro fertilization, an egg and sperm are combined in a laboratory dish then the embryo is implanted in the woman's uterus. 

Although I believe that everyone has the right to life and freedom, I do not believe this applies to embryos. The embryos in the picture above are not human beings. They do not have a brain or a pulse. If horrible diseases can be prevented, there is no reason that they should not be. Testing does not hurt the embryo and it would avoid the decision of having to terminate a fetus if the parents test later on. If I was in Amanda Bazley's position I would much rather destroy embryos than terminate a pregnancy. If parents with known diseases can afford in vitro fertilization and preimplantation diagnosis and save their unborn child from a devastating end to their life, testing is the only moral and ethical decision.