Bioethicist and industry spokesman on the baby business
Posted by Jesse Reynolds March 3, 2009
Biopolitical Times
Following on stories from the Associated Press on the absence of regulation in the fertility industry and from the Wall Street Journal on genetic selection for skin, hair, and eye color, a news article today raises further questions about America's "wild west" field of assisted reproduction. My colleague Marcy Darnovsky was cited in Suzanne Bohan's piece, which was published both in a group of thirty Northern California newspapers and as a shorter version delivered by the UPI wire.
Two other cited individuals are worth noting, as well. The prominent bioethicist Art Caplan drew the connection from the assisted reproduction industry to both eugenics and the profit motive:
Two other cited individuals are worth noting, as well. The prominent bioethicist Art Caplan drew the connection from the assisted reproduction industry to both eugenics and the profit motive:
But the nature of the business calls for tighter oversight, said Arthur Caplan, director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania and a regular MSNBC commentator....
Caplan has long favored an oversight system for fertility clinics modeled on those governing blood- and organ donation services. Caplan helped establish the latter, the United Network for Organ Sharing, in the 1980s. It consists of an advisory board, and works on contract with a federal health agency. The United States is also one of only a handful of developed countries without laws regulating specific treatment protocols in fertility clinics, such as the number of embryo transfers or screening embryos for sex selection.
And the high rate of multiple births isn't the most vexing concern for Caplan. What alarms him is the prospect of fertility clinics offering services to endow offspring with extra intelligence, athletic ability, or physical attributes. A procedure called preimplantation genetic diagnosis, or PGD, already is used to screen for sex selection at many clinics in the United States, as well as for genetic abnormalities.
''PGD is the single most controversial subject to ever face this field because you get right back to the eugenics issue,'' he said, referring to a movement that arose in the early 20th century that called for the promotion of certain traits among humans, and the reduction of others....
''The industry sees this not just as inevitable, but incredibly lucrative,'' Caplan said.
He took a similar line on Fox News this morning:
Sean Tipton, the spokesperson for the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, was in a more awkward position. The ASRM issues guidelines, whose flexibility it defends as necessary for doctors to adapt to particular cases. However, the guidelines appear to be violated by 80% of fertility clinics.
Regarding whether it's likely that four out of five cases could merit exceeding the guidelines due to unusual challenges in conceiving, he said the society couldn't second-guess doctors' decisions.And when asked about the potential for PGD to select for nonmedical characteristics - a practice contrary to his organization's guidelines - Tipton only deferred to the mantra of parental choice:
''We don't like to assume,'' Tipton said.
Tipton, with the reproductive society, said it wouldn't comment on a technology not yet in use, other than to say, ''We are generally in favor of physicians providing good, understandable information, so patients can make the best decision for their families.''