Nathan Cooley

Norton
English III
May 11, 2016
Pre-implementation Genetic Diagnosis
In 2002 a lesbian deaf couple decided to seek out the scientific program known as PGD
or pre-implantation genetic diagnosis. Theyre goal in this task was to genetically modify
an embryo so that their child would be deaf as well. This created a plethora of
controversy in the science world, as many did not see this as ethical to purposefully
impose a disability onto an unborn child. While it might seem clear that it is morally
wrong to genetically modify an embryo to become a dwarf or deaf, some maintain that
this disability isnt always seen as such. Parents, in the end, should not be able to
modify their childrens genes to have a similar disability to theirs as this may put them at
a disadvantage for their potential future.
While parents searching for PGD is a low percentile of parents in total, the
number is rising. However, just because a parent asks a doctor to do this, this doesnt
mean the doctor has to consent. Many doctors view this procedure as spreading a disease
that they see as unethical. Because of this, many doctors that parents, such as the deaf
couple in 2002 visit, decline their request; although these doctors also stated that they
wouldnt refuse to recommend them to another doctor that would carry out the procedure
(Sanghavi). Dr. Yury Verlinsky of the Reproductive Genetics Institute in Chicago, who
also refuses these requests, said, If we make a diagnostic tool, the purpose is to avoid
disease (Sanghavi). Another piece of evidence that the action of purposefully bringing

a disabled child into the world is wrong is: the United Kingdom law prohibits the
purposeful selection of embryo with intent of birthing a child with genetic disability
(Wilkinson). Surely if a nation is willing to ban purposeful modifying or selecting
embryo to be disabled in a court of law then this should not be considered ethical?
One of the main points that supporters of this particular PGD modification stand
behind is the thought that being deaf or dwarf is simply human variation, and not a
disease at all. Another main disability that is in question surrounding this controversy is
Autism Spectrum Disorder. Neurodiversity activists argue that ASD and Asperger
syndrome in particular is not a disease to be treated or cured, but rather a human
variation like gender, race, or sexual orientation, that deserves respect (Buchman). They
use the literal definition of disability to back their views. Moral intuitions about
disability in ableist societies suggest that having a disability is something undesirable,
as being disabled significantly reduces the individuals quality of life* and social
opportunities (Buchman). While these points remain somewhat valid, it should still be
viewed that intentionally bringing a disabled child into world is a poor idea. This is
mainly due to the fact that this child could be at a disadvantage among other potential
children.
In conclusion, the act of deliberately birthing a baby with disabilities should be
considered unethical and should not be done. While some people might not consider
being deaf, a dwarf, or having ASD as a disability, these people still suffer from
disadvantages compared to other humans. Because of this, purposefully choosing
embryos with disabilities would put the child somewhat behind other children without
disabilities of its age. One might even go as far to say to pass a law outlawing this

procedure as it might be seen as deliberately harming a child. Whether you consider the
use of PGD to birth children with disabilities is ok or not it is still a highly controversial
issue that will most likely see popularity in the future. Whether legislature will pass to
stop this or condone it is unknown.

Works Cited
Buchman, Daniel. Disability by Design? Neuroethics at the Core. N.p., 27 Sept. 2010.
Web. 11 May 2016
Sanghavi, Darshak. Wanting Babies Like Themselves, Some Parents Choose
Genetic Defects. The New York Times. The New York Times, 04 Dec. 2006. Web. 11
May 2016.
Wilkinson, Stephen. Choosing Disability. Staffordshire: Keele U, 2013. Print