Sound The Trumpet : New Three Parent Baby IVF Plan Raises Ethical Questions

Must Listen

Must Read

What Art Thinks

Pre-Millennialism

Today's Headlines

Sorry... Not Available

Locally Contributed...

Audio

Video

Special Interest

Daily News

23696

“New Three Parent Baby IVF Plan Raises Ethical Questions”
by Prophecy New Watch
August 25th, 2014

If you are used to the concept of a one daddy and mommy, you may also soon need to adjust to the idea of daddy, mommy and mommy. And no, daddy isn’t getting a second wife, even where that is legal or permissible. Rather, when mommy number one isn’t able to have healthy kids due to some medical defects with her reproductive eggs, mommy number two steps in. And no, she won’t be a surrogate mum by carrying daddy and mommy number one’s child. Instead, she will donate sections of her eggs to mommy number one, so that mommy number one can have healthy children with daddy.

Ruth Gledhill writes about this budding IVF plan in a recent edition of Christian Today. The plan has been raising concern amongst certain Christians and scientists: the concept of "three-parent babies" or "mitochondrial donation" which has been criticized both by scientists and representatives of the Church of England as well as the Roman Catholic Church.

Gledhill reports that the Government last week published its response to a 12-week Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority (HFEA) consultation on draft regulations to permit the use of new techniques to prevent transmission of serious mitochondrial disease from mother to child. Some oppose the proposed IVF technique, "mitochondrial replacement therapy", because they believe it is a form of genetic modification and creates children with, in effect, three parents. The Government response emphasizes that no nuclear DNA, which provides physical and other traits that children inherit from their parents, would be contributed from the donated female egg or embryo. The Government has consistently rejected claims that the techniques constitute genetic modification. Critics in turn have rejected the Government's working definition which excludes mitochondrial donation techniques from being counted as actual genetic modification.

On the face of it, the government motive seems to be acting in a medically responsible, sensitive and pro-active manner, managing a form of preventative disease control. Gledhill quotes the Department of Health document in which it is estimated that one in 6,500 children is born each year with serious mitochondrial DNA disorder which can have a "devastating" effect on families. Consequences include premature death of children, painful and debilitating suffering, long-term illness and low quality of life. The intention is to avoid this by allowing the use of eggs and embryos where the damaged mitochondria are replaced by healthy mitochondria from a donor.

Critics however cite certain risks and concerns and risks:

• The loss of genetic material during transfer;
• The transfer of small amounts of [mitochondrial DNA or] mtDNA from the affected egg to the donor egg;
• A mismatch between foreign mtDNA and nuclear DNA;
• Concerns regarding possible genetic mutations caused by "disrupting nuclear-mitochondrial interactions, including the production of 'unhealthy mitochondria and compromised cell function. These could submit the resulting children to serious, irreversible health risks, which would pass from generation to generation;
• "Lasting emotional damage" to children arising from such confusions as their parental and personal identities emanating from three legal parents rather than the normal genetic two;
• Questions around further genetic modification of children to "enhance" traits such as intellect and appearance to create "designer babies";
• The clear establishment for the need for these procedures, and in-built safeguards, such as children born from the process to have access to medical and personal information about donors.
• The Government should have waited for the conclusion of these further tests before publishing the Draft Regulations.

Perhaps the statement attributed to Dr. Helen Watt (senior research fellow of the Anscombe Centre, a Roman Catholic medical ethics centre) best encapsulates the critic’s views: "The tone of the report is reassuring, but the proposals are extraordinarily reckless with the lives and health of future generations. To remove the entire nuclear material from one egg or embryo and place it in another partially-gutted egg or embryo is hardly a minor intervention. It is absurd to deny that this is germ-line genetic modification, just because the nuclear material is left untouched when 'harvested' from a donor egg or worse, a donor embryo. After all, on that definition cloning from an adult human being would not be 'genetic modification' either…these techniques treat no-one, they merely manufacture children by means which are hazardous not just to those particular children but to generations to come. It is far better for couples who wish to avoid passing on a condition linked to mitochondrial genes to adopt a child than to seek new ways to be genetically related to a child lab-produced in this destructive and fragmentary way."

Neither are these concerns unique or isolated: According to another Christian Today report published in May, Lobbyist group Christian Concern issued a statement calling the UK's proposal to allow two mothers' genetic material to be used for Invitro fertilization (IVF) "dangerous and unethical." The statement added that "There are widespread concerns about the profound, adverse effects on a child's physiological well-being, including the impact on his or her sense of identity, which could arise from a genetic, parental connection with three, instead of two, individuals." The report states that whereas as IVF and surrogacy have already navigated legal and societal conflicts, three-parent IVF poses more questions for legislators and parents.

Other ethical questions come to mind: could the death of any embryos in this process be equated to a laboratory abortion? According to a report published by Life Site News, this process can actually be considered worse than “regular” abortions. The limits are being pushed in the name of medical advancement and the greater good of all, but the fact remains that cloning, euthanasia, and forms of IVF that involve killing embryos are attempts to play God or attempt to improve on His original plans and designs for man, while disregarding His laws and principles. The Bible states that life begins before birth, at conception, and that a God–ordained marriage is the union between a single man and a single woman, which naturally would exclude any genetic third party contributions to their biological offspring.

Another example of how far science will go to replace God’s creation and systems can be seen from a recent report, published in Aleteia.org, titled ‘Growing Babies in Artificial Wombs: Inevitable? Desirable? Moral?’ Susan Wills describes this plan as “The logical next step in the techno-quest to do reproduction better than God.” Wills further explains that “The possibility of perfecting artificial wombs to gestate human babies until they are full-term and physically ready for our brave new world is the unapologetic goal of Dr. Helen Hung-Ching Liu. She directs the Reproductive Endocrinology Laboratory at Cornell University’s Center for Reproductive Medicine and Infertility."

One wonders where it will all end and what will spring from fertile, evil and godless imaginations next – all in the name of good, of course. No wonder the scriptures warn that in these last days, “… But evil men and impostors will grow worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived (2 Timothy 3:13).

Looking for His glorious appearing! Titus 2:13