Summary: Three Parent In Vitro Fertilization

Should parent be allowed to genetically engineer their children? : The ethical dilemma of designer babies.

Picture a young couple in a waiting room looking through a catalogue together. This catalogue is a little different from what you might expect. In this catalogue, specific traits for babies are being sold to couples to help them create the "perfect baby." This may seem like a bizarre scenario, but it may not be too far off in the future. Designing babies using genetic enhancement is an issue that is gaining more and more attention in the news. This controversial issue, once thought to be only possible in the realm of science-fiction, is causing people to discuss the moral issues surrounding genetic enhancement and germ line engineering. Though genetic research can prove beneficial to learning how to prevent hereditary

The article “Three-parent babies: the argument for and against” written by Sarah Knapton states due the fact that the new technique called mitochondrial transfer can modify slightly the genome of next births, many opinions a favor and against of this method have been raised by ethical concerns. One of the argument a favor to the mitochondrial transfer is that it can benefit more than 2,500 mothers and 150 births a year. How the mitochondrial inheritance is through the mother, the transfer of mitochondria prevents of passing abnormal genes to the next generation in order to avoid mortal diseases, and the mitochondrial DNA is not more than 0.054 percentage without the nucleus of the cell. On the other hands, counter-arguments allege that children

In April 2016 the first baby boy, using a new technique that incorporates DNA from three people, was born. This revolutionary yet also controversial technique promises to help children avoid fatal genetic disorders passed down by their mothers. The boy’s mother carries genes for Leigh syndrome, which is a lethal disorder that affects the developing of the central nervous system. While supported by many, others state that mitochondrial donation is a step too far for genetic engineering.

New technological advances and scientific methods continue to change the course of nature. One of the current controversial advances in science and technology is the use of genetically modified embryos in which the study exceeds stem cell research. Scientists have begun planning for research involving human embryos in the genetic modification field. Many technological developments are responsible for improving our living standards and even saving lives, but often such accomplishments have troubling cultural and moral ramifications (Reagan, 2015). We are already beyond the days in which virtually the only procreative option was for a man and a woman to conceive the old-fashioned way (Reagan, 2015). Genetic modification of human embryos can be perceived as a positive evolution in the medical process yet it is surrounded by controversy due to ethical processes. Because this form of genetic modification could affect later born children and their offspring, the protection of human subjects should be a priority in decisions about whether to proceed with such research (Dresser, 2004). The term Human Genetic Engineering was originally made public in 1970. During this time there were several methods biologists began to devise in order to better identify or isolate clone genes for manipulation in several species or mutating them in humans.

Imagine a future where parents never had to worry about their child being sick-- a future where technology allowed parents the ability to make a flawless child. That future is near, but is halted due to people’s fear of Genetically Modified Babies, which is “a biologically radical technique referred to by terms including ‘mitochondrial replacement,’ and ‘nuclear genome transfer,’ [these techniques] would produce modifications in every cell of any resulting children” (Cussin and Darnovsky 16). This procedure takes the fetus’s cells and allows the doctors to manipulate the cells in any matter they want; then, the cells are placed in the women’s egg. Unfortunately, Genetically Modified Babies are “codified as [prohibited] in more than 40 countries and several international treaties” (Cussin and Darnovsky 16). In the United States, the FDA had a full day meeting on the subject matter. On February 2014, they discussed human modification and prohibited it (Cussin, Darnovsky 17). The idea of a “designer baby” may seem preposterous, but technology is making the concept attainable. In the United States, there are laboratories that have the technology to reach such a goal, but are unused due to the FDA’s law; however, if “nuclear genome transfer were allowed, [the laboratories] could be used for any purpose” (Cussin and Darnovsky 17). America should allow gene manipulation in babies because it is inhumane to let innocent babies suffer from diseases and disorders that can be

Spriggs, M., the author of “saviour siblings” present in his article his main idea which is to reveal in which specific cases is this method of designing a baby acceptable, under what conditions, and why. He includes in his article different points of view regarding what people, doctors and scientists think of that method. The IVF method of having a baby is permitted under certain conditions and for specific cases, for people who have a history of infertility and genetic diseases. He makes his point clear by saying that this method of designing babies is by no means a “toy” and should be used only in extreme cases. In England for instance, the

Over the past decade, the scientific technology of genetic engineering has grown drastically. Online articles propose that the chance to pick the accurate characteristics a guardian wants for their child will be accessible, “Any couple with several thousand dollars to spare can choose the sex of their offspring” (Ehrich and Williams, 2004). Progressed regenerative advances permit people and specialists to screen embryos for a hereditary issue and select solid developing lives. Although Designer babies have been a subject that has been banned in China, UK, and India, it is still a mainstream point far and wide. This subject brings a considerable measure of verbal confrontations about the basic, yes and no, but additionally about when and when not.

Although the frozen embryos are the solution in many infertility cases, but they come with some legal issues which discuss:

Fertility doctors have discovered a new procedure for women who have mitochondrial diseases and want to have healthy children. The procedure is called a mitochondrial transfer, using the DNA of both parents and a mitochondria from a donor. This process is not used often and it is not very well known in the United States. A procedure similar to this one was used in the 1990s and was unsuccessful, this new idea leaves people questioning if this one will be better than the last. The procedure of having a baby with the DNA of three people should not be used because this case is one of the first successful attempts and this process is only legal in two countries.

In the article “World’s First Baby Born from New Procedure Using DNA of Three People” by Ian Sample, they show that in counties with proper regulations a new procedure of mitochondrial transfer could give some hope to couples unable to have healthy children. This article shows the process of which scientists went through to eventually have a process that lets women with unhealthy eggs able to have children. The author also explains a different process that was used once in the 1990s’, where they injected cytoplasm from healthy donor eggs into unhealthy donor eggs, but this process causes children to be born with genetic disorders and later the procedure was banned. This article also shows how dangerous it can be to perform the treatment

Whereas the negative side of three person IVF on society would be the concerns have also been raised about whether mitochondrial donation may influence a child's personality and affect their mental health.

In 2015 genetic testing has advanced so much that the ability to make specific changes in our babies is now a reality. Is it right to choose science over nature? Could life be better for our future if we “enhanced ourselves,” by genetic testing during pre-birth? Eight years ago, Singer (2007) asked the same question: “Is the use of reproductive technology acceptable?” (Choosing babies, p. 86). For more than ten years now scientists have been using enhanced fertility methods for reproductive challenged families called in vitro fertilization (IVF). IVF is a procedure that allows for an egg from the female and sperm from the male to be combined in a laboratory, and once the two successfully combine producing an embryo it is then transferred into the females’ uterus.

Genetic engineering in babies is a concept that was developed within the last few decades, and due to rapid advancements in technology, it is beginning to become more reliable and more available for prospective parents. Parents will soon be able to choose the gender, eye color, hair color, and many other options for their unborn child, so that they can have the perfect, designer child. With the popularity of genetic engineering rising, many people are beginning to question how the process works, how it can help with diseases, and the ethics behind this new technology.

Abstract: When posed with the question: In a custody dispute over a fetus born through in vitro fertilization, whose rights should prevail? In-Vitro fertilization is a complicated and new area of study. However with the development of new processes and in this case, an entirely new field of study, come new questions which challenge the morality and ethics of either side, whether the fetus is given to the woman whose eggs were used, or whether the woman who carried the child through to term should have custody over the child. As it is now, it truly does end up coming down to a case-by-case basis. However in most cases, the rights of the woman whose eggs, or the man whose sperm was used to fertilize the embryo should prevail in case of any custody disputes.