A moral case study for discussion: designer babies and tissue typing

SmARTest regulation? Comparing the regulatory structures for ART in the UK and Australia

Assisted reproductive technologies are regulated in both the UK and Australia, thereby curtailing both reproductive and professional autonomy. Different regulatory models have developed in each jurisdiction, despite the similar legal, scientific and cultural histories of the two jurisdictions. In the UK the regulatory structures are under review, largely in the absence of empirical research on the costs and benefits of regulation. The regulatory structures in each jurisdiction are compared and some key differences identified. The UK regulatory structure governing assisted reproductive technologies is currently simpler, more accountable and more transparent than that in Australia. On the other hand, despite administrative and legislative restrictions (particularly in Victoria), the medical scientists and clinicians in Australia generally have more control than their British counterparts over the technical aspects of their work in the provision of IVF and other treatment services, and to a lesser extent in embryo research. Recent proposals appear to move the UK regulatory structure towards a less accountable and less transparent model, but with no evident increase in reproductive or professional autonomy. It is suggested that this change is not in the interests of patients, doctors and the public, and a different model is outlined for devolution of both authority and accountability to the professions.

Ethical consideration of intentioned preimplantation genetic diagnosis to enable future tissue transplantation

Recently, a case was presented where a couple with one normal child requested preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) with human leukocyte antigen (HLA) typing in order to conceive children who could serve as mutual donors for future transplantations if needed. While PGD for medical reasons is well defined and accepted, application for non-medical conditions is less obvious and still in debate. The present case calls to further extend the indications for PGD and raises a moral question as to whether to allow such intentioned treatment. Although it seems that all siblings might benefit from the procedure, when weighing the risks benefits and the ethical issues included in performing intentioned PGD, it seems that the procedure harbours risks and ethical issues that outweigh the benefit it offers. Therefore, it is time to constrain the slippery slope and state that intentioned PGD for conceiving children who might serve as siblings for mutual tissue donations should be declined.