A new article in the Journal of Medical Ethics argues for a novel, preference based assessment of Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD). Bioethicist Tomasz Żuradzki asserts that there are certain situations in which couples have a moral obligation to request PGD, “no matter what moral doctrine [they] subscribe to”.
Zuradzki imagines a situation in which embryos have already been prepared for implantation.
He departs from the traditional argument concerning the future benefits for the baby to be born; he argues rather from the perspective of the ‘hypothetical preferences’ of the embryos. Zuradzki claims that we must assume that the embryos are rational, and hence that they would chose to be screened for genetic predispositions.
Parents must honor these preferences of embryos, for “we should respect the hypothetical choices of rational agents.”
Zuradzki claims that anyone should do this, regardless of their ethical code:
“My argument demonstrates that even if somebody perceives the freezing and subsequent destruction of the surplus embryos remaining after an in vitro procedure to be the moral equivalent of killing adults, and thus sees potential parents who decide on PGD as just as immoral as the terrorists in the above example, she should still accept PGD as a method of embryo selection.”
Catholic teaching on the treatment of frozen embryos has been a topic of much bioethical debate recently - Zuradzki’s argument draws attention to this. The Church has described embryos as being in an “ethical limbo” and suggests that any way in which we try to handle the embryos will be morally illicit.
This article is published by Xavier Symons
and BioEdge.org under a Creative Commons licence. You may republish it or translate it free of charge with attribution for non-commercial purposes following these guidelines
. If you teach at a university we ask that your department make a donation. Commercial media must contact us
for permission and fees. Some articles on this site are published under different terms.