Ethical Arguments against Selective Reproduction: a philosophical analysis

In recent years, there has been a great deal of public debate about the creation of so-called 'designer babies'. This tabloid expression is in many respects unsatisfactory. It does however provide useful and widely recognised shorthand for certain ways of creating children using new reproductive technologies. This project is about the ethics of creating 'designer babies', less pejoratively known as selective reproduction. It is carried out by a philosopher. He starts by systematically analysing the meaning of key concepts or terms used in debates about selective reproduction. For example, he looks at concerns about the welfare of the child, about eugenics, and about interfering with nature. He then proceeds to explain and test the validity of moral arguments that people use in debates about selective reproduction. Many of the practical issues that he looks at are topical, especially given that the government is presently reviewing the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act, the main piece of legislation governing this area.

Preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) is one of the main technologies investigated by the project. This involves testing early embryos produced through in vitro fertilization (IVF). One cell is extracted from the embryo and analysed. Embryos free of conditions that cause serious disease are then implanted in a woman's womb and allowed to develop. PGD thus allows couples at risk of passing on a serious genetic disease to have a child that is genetically related to them but does not carry genes for the disease. PGD can however be used for other purposes and one of the major issues addressed by this project is which of these purposes are legitimate.

Here are some specific examples of the practical questions that will be addressed.

[1] In 2002 an American lesbian couple attracted media criticism by deliberately having a deaf baby using a sperm donor.
QUESTION- Should people with disabilities be permitted to use reproductive technologies to ensure that they have a child with the same disability?

[2] A number of couples have hit the headlines in recent times because of their desire to choose the sex of their child. One of the most emotively and widely reported of these was the case of Alan and Louise Masterton. They had four sons and one daughter, Nicole, who tragically died in a bonfire accident. The Mastertons wanted to use PGD to select a second daughter. Their request was turned down by HFEA (the regulatory body governing licensing in this area) whose rules only permit sex selection in order to avoid sex-linked genetic disorders such as hemophiliac, muscular dystrophy, and cystic fibrosis.
QUESTION - Should couples be allowed to choose the sex of their child and, if so, should this be restricted to cases (like the Mastertons) in which they want to 'balance' their families?

[3] By using HLA (Human Leukocyte Antigen) typing, more popularly known as 'tissue typing', in conjunction with preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD), doctors are now able to pick an embryo for implantation which, if all goes well, will become a 'saviour sibling', a brother or sister capable of donating life-saving tissue to an existing child. In the UK, the most recent case to reach the courts and the newspapers is that of the Hashmis. Their son, Zain, has beta-thalassemia, a blood disorder which could be cured using the umbilical cord tissue of a sibling, but only if the sibling is a tissue match. QUESTION- Should doctors and parents be permitted to create 'saviour siblings' to save the life of an existing child?