Ethics left behind by IVF science

Last updated at 11:57 22 March 2004


What parent could possibly have taken any other decision when presented with a chance to save their child?

For the third time in this country a couple are trying to create a 'designer baby' so that its bone marrow or cells can be used to save the life of a sibling.

Everyone, whatever their ethical view, will understand why the distraught parents have decided to go ahead and hope this latest case will have a happy ending.

Yet there are wider moral considerations. These issues, which need to be debated urgently, are being brought into even sharper focus because the treatment for this family, unlike the earlier two privately funded cases, will be financed by the NHS.

Inevitably many other couples, who have been unable to consider this option because of the cost, will now apply for treatment through NHS funding.

The result is certain to be an increase in the number of 'designer babies' who are born and greater pressure to extend the reasons for which they can be created.

Would it, for example, be acceptable to create a child in this way to save the life of its mother or father?

No one should criticise desperate families for pursuing this course. But decisions with profound ethical significance should not be left to individual health trusts.

For the reality is that medical science is continuing to undermine ethical and moral constraints that were once taken for granted and that there has been little attempt to provide leadership through this moral minefield.

Yes, medical experts are giving their opinions. But what guidance has there been from politicians, religious leaders or philosophers? What debate has been held over whether this is an acceptable use of NHS resources?

These issues must be confronted while there is still a choice about whether everyone is entitled to this treatment - and whether the overburdened NHS should be obliged to provide it.

Most watched News videos