|
|
|
| HOME | Atheism | Fiction |
Gay World |
HIV |
Opinion |
Reviews |
|
Ill-conceived 23 August 2002 I am confused. In February this year, the UK Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority granted a licence for the parents of a two-year-old child suffering from thalassaemia, which causes permanent pain and leads to death in the early twenties, to ensure that a future child will not suffer from the same disease. This can only be ensured by embryo selection. Then earlier this month the same authority denied another couple the right to screen a future embryo to ensure that it was a perfect tissue match for their three-year-old suffering from a rare blood disorder, diamond blackfan anaemia. The child needs the tissue for a potentially life-saving bone marrow transplant. The HFEA claims that the decision in the first case was because the disease is hereditary and the proposed action is for the benefit of the future child, while the in the second case the disease is not hereditary and the proposed action would be for the benefit of the existing child. It's a good point, but it's about as relevant as the number of angels on the head of a pin. The parents denied the right to screen their embryo are not intending to have a baby for the sole benefit of saving the life of their first child. They are not planning a Robin Cook-scenario where the new-born child will be kept in the cellar, comatose and hooked up to drips that keep him or her alive but unconscious while vital body fluids are drained. They want a healthy family and think that a second child might not only be a boon in itself, but could help save the life of its elder sibling. After all, how many children are naturally conceived purely for their own benefit? How many are conceived by accident, contraception failiing or couples forgetting or one partner drunk or the result of rape? And how many are conceived selfishly, by parents whose marriage or relationship is falling apart but who believe that a child will somehow keep them together, or by single mothers who insist that the demands of their biological clock are more important than the right of a child to be brought up by its genetic mother and father? And how many children are conceived by parents who believe that it is their religious or patriotic duty to procreate as often as possible? While many of us have strong opinions about whether or not we want to be parents, relatively few make considered decisions as to the circumstances in which we conceive - and many of those who do so act out of concern for their own needs rather than the needs of the future child. So when a couple makes a rational choice intended to benefit the existing and future child rather than themselves, it is disheartening to see bureaucrats turn them down when they should be applauded. Back to Opinion |
|
|
