Pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) involves the examination in the laboratory of an embryo who has been created in a test tube through in vitro fertilisation. A biopsy is then carried out to remove a cell from the developing embryo, which can be used to test whether the embryo carries a genetic disabling condition. The biopsy is usually performed two to five days after fertilisation when the embryo consists of between six and 10 cells¹.

One of the key objections to PGD is that when cells are separated from an embryo in these very early stages each separated cell has the capacity to develop and grow. Each is actually an embryo in its own right. This is similar to how identical twins occur naturally. In PGD, one of each pair of ‘twins’ is destroyed in order to test its genes. If a disability is found in the genes, the twin of that embryo is also discarded. Where no disability is found, the twin of the test embryo is transferred to the womb. Less than 15 percent of embryos implanted by this method survive² and it has been found that only 25 percent of embryos screened for chromosomal disabilities have "entirely normal cells"³.

PGD is most widely used for people who have a family history of genetic disabilities, including cystic fibrosis, Huntington’s disease and Tay-Sach’s disease. PGD also made the headlines when it was performed to select an embryo who did not have the Fanconi’s anaemia genetic disability and who, once born, would be a good source of transplant cells for a sister who did have it⁴.

SPUC acknowledges the scientific fact that each individual human life normally⁵ begins at the moment of fertilisation. From the beginning of their lives, human beings, whether or not they have a disability, are entitled to the respect proper to their human nature, to protection from harm, and to rights appropriate to their stage of development – the most fundamental of which is the right to life. PGD is completely incompatible with a respect for the right to life, because it entails creating and destroying "test embryos", and also destroying any "twins" who do not measure up to an arbitrary measure of desirability.

PGD is dependent on the availability of IVF technology, without which it would not be possible. In addition to the thousands of embryos destroyed during the process of developing IVF, hundreds of thousands of human embryos continue to be destroyed as a result of IVF technology⁶. In view of this cavalier attitude towards the destruction of very young human beings, it is perhaps not surprising that the destruction of those found to have a disabling condition has become widely accepted.

It is, of course, both natural and right that parents should hope that their children will not have to contend with illness or disability, and that they should take ethical steps to try to give their children the best possible start in life. There are ways of protecting unborn children from disability which are not destructive, such as refraining from smoking or drinking alcohol, and taking supplements, such as folic acid which can prevent the disability spina bifida from occurring. Such measures cannot prevent every disabling condition, but it must be recognised that parents do not have a right to a non-disabled baby. Children are gifts, not commodities.

Pro-abortion medical academic David Paintin⁷ has posed the question: "Does the availability of abortion to prevent the birth of a seriously abnormal fetus imply discrimination against people who have a congenital disability?"⁸ The answer is clear. It is impossible for a society to value a group of individuals whilst simultaneously advocating their systematic destruction. We acknowledge the equal value and dignity of every human being by wholeheartedly welcoming into our society every child, disabled or not.

1 Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, Eighth Annual Report and Accounts, 1999
2 "The selfish gene", Deborah Kent, The Guardian, 10 February 1999
3 "Genetic test opens door to quest for ‘perfect babies’", Sharon Kirkey, The Ottawa Citizen, 23 October 2000
4 "Joy of the family in front line of science", Damian Whitworth, The Times, 5 October 2000
5 Leaving aside open questions regarding the embryogenesis of monozygotic twins.
6 Background Information on Stem Cells and the proposed Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Research Purposes) Regulations – Memorandum sent to all Members of Parliament by the Department of Health November 2000. The Memorandum notes that between 1991 and 1998 48,000 human embryos were used in research and 237,600 were destroyed.
7 Emeritus reader in obstetrics and gynaecology, Imperial College School of Medicine at St Mary’s, London.
8 Marie Stopes International website.

'A Way of Life' The Society for the Preotection of Unborn Children March 2002

Copyright © 2002-2008 The Society for the Protection of Unborn Children. All Rights Reserved. Tel: 0141 221 2094. E-mail: Web Design & Development by CSS Web Design