Legal experts back screening of embryos

Last updated 05:00 05/03/2009

Relevant offers

Health

A burning issue: When coffins get too big Promoter dismisses bike helmet harm study Plucky mother intent on recovery ACC beneficiary admits he cheated Cafe's stub-out stance a winner Doctor sceptical about boy's alternative cancer care Calls to stop the spread of fast food outlets Information withheld puts children 'at risk' Kiwi scientist urges halt to doomsday flu research City doctors earn less than country cousins

Couples should be able to screen and select embryos based on their future risk of developing hereditary cancers and Alzheimer's disease and the law already allows them to, a new report finds.

Law experts say the use of technology to screen for such "low-penetrance, late-onset conditions" was not considered by policy makers when the regulations were drawn up. But the wording allows it, the report from Otago University's Human Genome Research Project says.

The Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Act 2004 allows the use of pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) to test embryos for serious hereditary conditions such as cystic fibrosis and select or reject them depending on the results.

The report recommends extending the use of the technology to "susceptibility" testing screening for conditions that have only a low chance of occurring and would appear only later in life. They include hereditary breast, ovarian and bowel cancers and neurogenerative diseases such as Alzheimer's.

Such use is already permitted "as a matter of law because of the wording of current legal guidelines", the report says.

Principal investigator Professor Mark Henaghan, dean of Otago University's law faculty, said the regulations used the words "serious impairment", which he described as "a pretty wide-open term".

But he said couples were only likely to use it to screen for cancer risk if the family history was particularly bad, such as several women in the same family dying of breast cancer.

It was a "legitimate" step in the use of the technology, Professor Henaghan said. "It doesn't mean we are going right down the slippery slope ... We can draw a limit at any time."

Allowing people to make choices about their family's health was "quite different" to making embryo screening compulsory, he said.

The report says using PGD for such conditions represents a fundamental shift in the use of the technology. "Not only may the disorder never occur, but surveillance measures for early detection may be available, or if a condition does develop, there may be effective treatment options."

Use of PGD to assess the risk of some cancers has recently been allowed in other countries, including Britain and Australia.

But the report says the practice is unlikely to be widespread here because it requires the use of in-vitro fertilisation and resulting pregnancy rates are not high. "PGD is not only physically and emotionally demanding, but is also costly."

The report is the third and final in a series from the research project, sponsored by the Law Foundation.

Ad Feedback

Its other recommendations include:

Creating an independent agency to protect consumers and monitor the use of genetic information by insurance companies.

A registration system to impose tighter controls over use of stored human tissue samples for genetic research. Hospitals, labs, universities, DNA banks and fertility clinics all have tissue collections.

EMBRYO TESTS

Pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) can be used with in-vitro fertilisation (IVF) to test embryos for inherited genetic conditions, such as haemophilia, cystic fibrosis and Huntington's disease.

Such conditions are present at birth or early childhood or are inevitable if the gene is present. Only unaffected embryos are transferred to the uterus.

The Government announced public funding for PGD in 2005, enough to fund about 40 cycles a year for at-risk couples.

It also expected about 110 cycles to be paid for privately, but fertility experts have said the number using it is far lower.

- Rebecca Palmer, Dominion Post

 

18 comments
Post a comment
HateHD   #18   08:28 am Mar 06 2009

What a ridiculous argument to say one person's suffering like your own child's was a blessing because you are now a better person. Therefore the suffering of that child was a good thing. That's not to say something good can't come of something bad... but the trade off is ridiculous in that case. Especially if it can be avoided. If the suffering was so wonderful why go to a doctor to alleviate it? You being a better person is a minor detail and who cares if you are? Oh goodie... my child's fatal illness made me more empathetic. I can bet the farm that the person who uses that argument is the first to rush for chemo when they are stricken by cancer to avoid suffering and a painful death for themselves. Why not be the catalyst for someone else's self improvement through your own suffering? That is an argument for why bad things happen to good people. He got sick so I could see the light. A bad thing is a bad thing..not a good thing. Quit trying to excuse it as being good.

Bob   #17   12:21 am Mar 06 2009

I have a severe genetic disease that can cost in excess of a hundred thousand taxpayer dollars every year of my live. So having the ability to prevent my children and their children suffering the same fate as me is fantastic. I think that the people who consider this a selfish act forget that some people choose not to have children as they don't want to risk passing on potentially live threatening diseases or painful debilitating conditions. For these people it would give them the opportunity to have children

Tony   #16   12:51 pm Mar 05 2009

Lorraine - #14

These are admirable sentiments. Yes you have persevered through difficulty and you sound like you are a constructive member to society. The suffering that you and your family have been subjected to has surely shaped who you are...

Which is kind of my point. Your experiences have been shaped by your surroundings and environment since you were born. Whilst you have handled it amicably (probably due in some part to the family history and understanding) there are many who do not. As pointed out by many in the comments, life isn't perfect and people are bound to come across suffering and challenges anyway... why compund it with a genetic disorder.

Also, by the sounds of it, you have had this condition since birth, and have grown up with the challenges surrounding it. The article deals with late onset genetic illness. Imagine someone with late-onset disease such as Parkinson's or Huntingtons. They go through the first 30-40 years of their life, carve themselves and existence, likely get married and have children. Imagine that they then start to exhibit the genetic effects of forgetting your children's names. Imagine now that the first 30 or 40 years would still transpire, but the chances of them having these changes are lessened, what is wrong with that?

Yes I agree with you in that your life is your life, my life is my life and I would prefer to have lived it as not. The question is, does an individual form at conception, implantation or from their development there on in? My OPINION is that all of the embryos are only potential children, and that selecting the one with the best opportunity of a full and healthy life is only helping the ONLY POSSIBLE CHILD rather than discriminating against a number of children.

Keep in mind this is only making it a choice and not mandatory. I would not try to prevent someone from raising a child from an embryo with the genetic basis for disease. It is the parent's choice on what they believe is best for them and their child. I only hope that people from the other viewpoint can give parents who wish to do this the same courtesy.

Needless to say, parents on either side of the debate will probably do much better than the large number of people (often teenagers) without thinking of what it means in the long term.

Sarah   #15   12:37 pm Mar 05 2009

This is an incredibly sensitive issue. I can see why a parent would want to make sure their child didn't suffer needlessly. Embryo's, are they babies already, Or are they just cells? It's far too difficult to have an opinion if you have never been in the shoes of someone who suffered.

I am pregnant right now, and have been a bit of a wreck since I found out, worried that my own child might have some of the complications that I had growing up (I had a life expectancy of 2 years, thankfully I don't listen to doctors!!),

As it is, although my childhood was wrought with difficulty, and although I wasnt supposed to live, I am now a healthy 27 year old, with only minor barriers to overcome. It is very hard to look into the future, and you don't know what life would bring, or what medical breakthrough is just around the corner, so a lot of thought has to be given before any decision for or against is given.

Lorraine   #14   12:22 pm Mar 05 2009

Hi Emma & Tony - as I said - I have not had a perfect existence. My son's condition is only one of many genetic difficulties we have to deal with. I have a defective gene that causes suffering on and off, almost every day - I am extremely grateful that I was not aborted because it affects every female in my family - at least 3 generations back, and I have it the worst. Suffering can produce beauty that has never been there before - it is how we live with that is the difference. I take heavy medication, which means I have ballooned from a size 9 to a 22. Just living with that discrimination is no fun. I will never be able to work full time again - and I had a brilliant teaching career. The list goes on - I fight everyday just to be normal - and yes, I would rather be here, than never had had the chance - because no body gave me a choice.

Stu   #13   12:19 pm Mar 05 2009

I'd say there's 10x the amount of money, time and stress involved in dealing with misfits of society that don't actually have any type of genetic disorder. Look at the numbers in prisons etc.

Incidentally, what a great programme on TV last night about the crew at Hohepa with their award winning cheese...the handicapped people were all so proud, happy and stress-free that they made me realise they had qualities that I don't have

debo   #12   12:07 pm Mar 05 2009

Embryos are human beings. I agree with Jasmine. Life doesn't come with a guarrantee that it will be perfect and painless- we have to take the good with the bad. I am very suspect that this new technology is totally accurate. My 39 year old sister had a false diagnosis for Downs for her unborn baby, which caused weeks of heartache only to be told weeks later "We got it wrong." Parents stand up for your unborn children- they need defenders!!!

LYNNE   #11   11:57 am Mar 05 2009

I watched my beautiful granddaughter, who died at home age 15, struggle and fight cystic fibrosis. She was my daughters only child and when her condition got so bad she couldn't even get herself out of bed my daughter chose to nurse her at home instead of having her spend all her time in hospital, oxygen machines (2), feeding machine, electric hospital bed, Intravenous Drip, copious drugs all this crammed into her bedroom. She should have had a life expectancy off at least 20-25 had multiple infections that each time worsened her condition and with the sterioids and other drugs her heart and bones became damaged. She was an intelligent, artistic and noncomplaining girl and I am glad we had her for 15 years but I would not want my daughter to go through that again and if she chose to maybe have another child these tests would ensure that wouldn't happen.

Kim   #10   11:39 am Mar 05 2009

Embryos are living beings that is why they must have the best chance for a healthy start. We do everything in our power as parents to protect our children once they are born, why not before. It is not about you and what you want and how you will cope, its about your child and how their lives will be. It is your obligation as a parent to make sure your child is healthy, happy and loved and will have a good production life.

Emma   #9   11:30 am Mar 05 2009

Ro Quentin, Lorraine & Jasmine. Have you ever in your perfect existence had to deal with a Familial Genetic condition?? Have you had to go through the processes of DNA testing and the dreaded test result day that in the edn basically gives your life an expiry date because you have 1 stupid Gene that is going to gove you 10-15 years of pain and siffering. I think the ability to screen embryo's and ensure that the children do not have to suffer with a certain Gene is one of the mere miracles of science. I think that in order to have an opinion on such a personal and private topic you have to know what the heck you are talking about. There is no point bringing your selfrighteous attitudes in to an internet comment posting are, go to the hospital and find a family with a terminal genetic condition, come out of your little bubble and see what it is like on a day to day basis for these people. What right to you all have to judge a situation that you have 0 FACTS about....Thinks about that..We deserve Love and Fulfilment too...without having the guilt that we have brought a child into this world with an expiry date and decreased quality of life...


Show 1-8 of 18 comments

Post comment


Required

Required. Will not be published.
Registration is not required to post a comment but if you , you will not have to enter your details each time you comment. Registered members also have access to extra features. Create an account now.


Maximum of 1750 characters (about 300 words)

I have read and accepted the terms and conditions
These comments are moderated. Your comment, if approved, may not appear immediately. Please direct any queries about comment moderation to the Opinion Editor at blogs@stuff.co.nz
Special offers

Featured Promotions

Sponsored Content