Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 12 (2):187-202 (2009)
AbstractThe identification and avoidance of disease susceptibility in embryos is the most common goal of preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD). Most jurisdictions that accept but regulate the availability of PGD restrict it to what are characterized as ‘serious’ conditions. Line-drawing around seriousness is not determined solely by the identification of a genetic mutation. Other factors seen to be relevant include: impact on health or severity of symptoms; degree of penetrance (probability of genotype being expressed as a genetic disorder); potential for therapy; rate of progression; heritability; and age of onset. In the original applications of PGD, most, if not all of these factors were seen as necessary but none was seen as sufficient for determining whether a genetic condition was labelled ‘serious’. This, however, is changing as impact on health or severity of symptoms is coming to eclipse the other considerations. This paper investigates how age of onset (primarily in the context of the United Kingdom (UK)) has become considerably less significant as a criterion for determining ethically acceptable applications of PGD. Having moved off the threshold of permitting PGD testing for only fatal (or seriously debilitating), early-onset diseases, I will investigate reasons for why age of onset will not do any work to discriminate between which adult-onset diseases should be considered serious or not. First I will explain the rationale underpinning age of onset as a factor to be weighed in making determinations of seriousness. Next I will challenge the view that later-onset conditions are less serious for being later than earlier-onset conditions. The final section of the paper will discuss some of the broader disability concerns at stake in limiting access to PGD based upon determinations of the ‘seriousness’ of genetic conditions. Instead of advocating a return to limiting PGD to only early-onset conditions, I conclude that the whole enterprise of trying to draw lines of what is to count as a ‘serious’ condition is itself problematic and in certain ways morally misleading
Similar books and articles
Huntington's disease: prenatal screening for late onset disease.S. G. Post - 1992 - Journal of Medical Ethics 18 (2):75-78.
Reproductive autonomous choice – A cherished illusion? Reproductive autonomy examined in the context of preimplantation genetic diagnosis.Kristin Zeiler - 2004 - Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 7 (2):175-183.
Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis: Choosing the “Good Enough” Child. [REVIEW]Helen Watt - 2004 - Health Care Analysis 12 (1):51-60.
Ethical issues and policy analysis for genetic testing: Huntington's disease as a paradigm for diseases with a late onset.Anjali Lilani - 2005 - Human Reproduction and Genetic Ethics 11 (2):28.
Choosing between Possible Lives: Legal and Ethical Issues in Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis.Rosamund Scott - 2006 - Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 26 (1):153-178.
‘Saviour Siblings’? The Distinction between PGD with HLA Tissue Typing and Preimplantation HLA Tissue Typing: Winner of the Max Charlesworth Prize Essay 2006.Crystal K. Liu - 2007 - Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 4 (1):65-70.
Wrestling with the future: Should we test children for adult-onset genetic conditions?Cynthia B. Cohen - 1998 - Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 8 (2):111-130.
Sex Selection by Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis for Nonmedical Reasons in Contemporary Israeli Regulations.Richard V. Grazi, Joel B. Wolowelsky & David J. Krieger - 2008 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 17 (3):293-299.
Using the best interests standard to decide whether to test children for untreatable, late-onset genetic diseases.Loretta M. Kopelman - 2007 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 32 (4):375 – 394.
Creating a stem cell donor: A case study in reproductive genetics.Jeffrey P. Kahn & Anna C. Mastroianni - 2004 - Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 14 (1):81-96.
Should we select for genetic moral enhancement? A thought experiment using the moralkinder (mk+) haplotype.Halley S. Faust - 2008 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 29 (6):397-416.
Reunifying autism and early-onset schizophrenia in terms of social communication disorders.Sylvie Tordjman - 2008 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 31 (3):278-279.
Law, ethics and medicine: The right not to know and preimplantation genetic diagnosis for Huntington’s disease.E. Asscher & B.-J. Koops - 2010 - Journal of Medical Ethics 36 (1):30-33.
Ethical aspects of plans to combat Huntington's chorea.C. J. Brackenridge - 1981 - Journal of Medical Ethics 7 (1):24-27.
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads
Citations of this work
In vitro fertilisation with preimplantation genetic testing: the need for expanded insurance coverage.Madison K. Kilbride - 2021 - Journal of Medical Ethics 47 (12):e40-e40.
References found in this work
Reasons and Persons.Joseph Margolis - 1986 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 47 (2):311-327.
Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity.Ulrich Beck, Mark Ritter & Jennifer Brown - 1993 - Environmental Values 2 (4):367-368.
From Chance to Choice: Genetics and Justice.Allen Buchanan, Dan W. Brock, Norman Daniels & Daniel Wikler - 2000 - Cambridge University Press.
From Chance to Choice: Genetics and Justice.Allen Buchanan, Dan W. Brock, Norman Daniels & Daniel Wikler - 2000 - Philosophy 76 (297):472-475.