Strollerderby : Designer Babies

Fertility Clinic Offers Designer Babies

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 21:30:00 GMT

Wanna make sure your baby has sparkling blue eyes? What about tan skin and blond hair? You’re in luck, because Fertility Institutes in Los Angeles is offering parents the option of choosing their babies’ physical traits! It’ll cost you, of course, but then—what’s more important than your child’s physical appearance?

Some would argue: his health. And indeed, the same technology that Fertility Institutes plans to use for made-to-order children was originally developed for the important purpose of screening embryos for fatal genetic disorders. This procedure is known as PGD--pre-implantation genetic diagnosis.

Already, 42 percent of PGD clinics offer couples the option of choosing their baby’s gender, but Fertility Institutes is the first clinic to offer cosmetic choices as well.

If this sounds scarily redolent of eugenics to you, you’re not alone. The U.S. is one of few countries that have no regulations in place to govern the uses of PGD. Many doctors who support PGD argue that using it to for non-medical purposes risks limiting human diversity and increasing societal discrimination.

But Jeff Steinberg, the director of Fertility Institutes, is not one to be scared off by a bit of bad press. "This is cosmetic medicine," he says. "Others are frightened by the criticism but we have no problems with it." Nor, apparently, do they have souls....

Image: CBS News

Also on Babble:

Pick a Sex, Any Sex

Designer Baby Born Without Cancer Gene

Brett Singer — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 20:00:00 GMT

Pop quiz: you have a history of cancer in your family. You want to have children. Science has progressed to the point where you can alter your unborn child's genetics so that they will be born without the particular gene that causes the particular type of cancer in your bloodline. What do you do?

This is no longer a hypothetical question. A baby girl was just born in Britain without the defective BRCA1 gene, which causes cancer in 50 to 85 percent of girls, according to London's Daily Mail. That gene is rampant in this particular London family, who wisely chose to remain anonymous. (No reality TV show for those two.)

When the unborn are mucked with, controversy follows. Various Pro-Life/Anti-Choice advocates, such as James Dowson of LifeLeague, are against the practice, calling it a "slippery slope…It is designer babies. Screening for cancer is an emotive issue - my own father and grandfather both had cancer, so I know - but it is a dangerous road to go down. Today it is cancer, next year it will be IQ, and the year after that blue eyes and blonde hair."

I don't like the term "designer baby". It sounds like something you create in a lab. But isn't that what doctors are doing? I realize that I'm not offering a good analysis of the science involved here. The Daily Mail article is decent, and there is lots of information online if you want to read up on it. I'm going to stick with the more parenting-related issues that come up with this story.

I'm somewhat ambivalent about the idea of genetic screening, and even more hesitant to agree with genetic manipulation. Although I'm not a scientist (I even graduated college without passing a single science class, for what that's worth) I feel strongly that doctors can't possibly know what the long-term effects are of adding and removing genes from anyone, in utero or fully-grown. Like most Jewish parents, my wife and I went through the genetic screening process when she was pregnant, but declined to know all of the information that they found. It's one thing to check and see if you are a carrier for a horrible and incurable disease such as Tay-Sachs. It's something else to find out what the chances are that your child will contract various types of cancers. We decided that we'd rather not know.

And therein lies the core of the issue – choice. If a technique is available and medically possible, it shouldn't be up to me or anyone else to decide whether or not it can be used.

My ambivalence comes from the idea of trying to create a baby with traits that you pick off of a menu of human characteristics – "I'll have the blue eyes with a hint of hazel, and a boy with a strong right leg so he can grow up to be an NFL punter like Jeff Feagles." (Hey, Jeff Feagles is one of the best punters in football. And punters can play longer than any other position in the game because they don't get hit much.) This may sound silly, but I've read enough comic books and seen enough movies to know that messing around with genetics rarely ends well. Eventually some lunatic – Hitler, perhaps – decides to create a Master Race of Super Soldiers and starts World War III. Hm, maybe it's not just a comic book thing.

As with abortion, this is a religious issue. Conservative British politician Ann Widdecombe said, "'A lot of embryos have genes in them that could lead to nothing but them turning into perfectly healthy humans. Once again this shows a worrying precedent that man wants to play God."

This is the argument that nobody ever makes when it comes to the death penalty. But that's a different story.

What do you think? Is this just another issue of personal choice and women's reproductive freedom? Or is it more dangerous? And even if it is more dangerous, does anyone have the right to tell someone not to do it?

Source: Daily Mail

They Say: Smoking While Pregnant Makes Kids Aggressive

Mother Sues OB Who Said She "Deserved Pain"—And Gave It to Her

Most Tasteless Tree Ornament Ever

Tell Obama to Overturn the Global Gag Rule Sooner Rather Than Later

Woman Arrested For Breast Feeding At A Bar

Critical Health Information or Designer Babies? Where Will New Genetic Testing Lead?

Shannon LC Cate — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 19:00:00 GMT

As prenatal DNA tests become better and more widely available many worry that their benefits are outweighed by their dangers. A lengthy article in the Washington Post takes up this discussion in some depth. It seems that while new and better testing at the level of DNA is a great tool to help women carrying pregnancies in risky circumstances (advanced maternal age, previous history of genetically abnormal pregnancies or births, unclear ultrasound results, etc.) some ethicists still fear the tests could be misused. Says the Post:

"Some worry that the technique could be used to hunt for the rapidly growing list of genetic markers that merely signal an increased risk for cancer, diabetes, mental illness, obesity, addiction and other conditions later in life. Someday, similar tests could perhaps even vet fetuses for traits associated with beauty, personality or intelligence."

And in a broader look at concerns I expressed here recently, disabled rights groups worry that insurance companies may start refusing to cover treatment for conditions discovered through this testing, pressuring women to terminate pregnancies they might otherwise desire to continue:

"We want disabled children to be welcomed into the world. My fear is we're moving in the opposite direction," said Andrew Imparato, president of the American Association of People With Disabilities. "If we decide to use prenatal testing to eliminate gene-based disabilities, that's what the Nazis were trying to do, in their own crude way. I think we're saying that certain types of lives aren't worth living."

The old anxiety about "designer" babies comes up again in the article. I am of two minds about it. On the one hand, I think this fear is overblown--most parents will probably not be interested in screening for eye color or other meaningless traits. But on the other hand, the grey area the article mentions--genetic markers for a "tendency" to traits like obesity, certain cancers or other health problems or socially undesirable features may make it to the routine list someday. And at this point the technology is a dull enough instrument that many gene "markers" leave much unknown about what exactly their effects are in a real, live person. As a lesbian, I personally worry about parents terminating fetuses with genetic markers for same-sex orientation--that holy grail so many gay rights acitvists hope for but that I hope fervantly against.

As with any tool, it is imperitive that people be properly educated and trained to use it. The answer is not to refuse such new technologies, but to step up the education people receive about how to understand what it tells us.

More bioethics from this writer:

In Which I Find Myself in Rare Agreement with Sarah Palin (sort of)

Redefining Death to Preserve Life

Baby Fashion Climbs Upscale

Kelly Mills — Wed, 20 Jun 2007 15:30:00 GMT

Fashion designers have been tapping a new market: infant clothing. Labels like D&G, Diesel, Ella Moss, and Moschino are putting out teeny little ensembles for the tiniest fashion plates. Okay, so don't forget to throw at least three pairs of True Religion jeans in the bag, because you know your baby goes through more outfits than Lindsay Lohan at an awards show.

Know what the problem is with infant couture? The fashion shows are hecka boring. It takes like four hours for the first model to get down the runway, what with the weak crawling skills and the constant scrambling after Binkies and what-have-you. Plus you can hardly see a thing with Suri and Shiloh hogging the front row. I heard a couple of the baby models are on nursing strikes too, something about fear of chubby cheeks. And if I have to listen to that techno version of "Old MacDonald" one more friggin' time, I swear I'll lose my ever-lovin' mind. Though I did just about die for the McQueen designs, with the plaid bibs decorated with sequin spit-up.

Posh & Katie To Launch Kids' Clothing Line?

Alisyn — Thu, 05 Apr 2007 00:11:00 GMT

Is your mini-fashionista dying for a pair of $300 silk ballet flats to wear to preschool? How about a rabbit-fur trimmed cashmere sweater for those chilly spring mornings? If the rumor is true, and Victoria Beckham and Katie Holmes are indeed launching a line of children's clothing, you may be able to find such treasures at a Barney's near you. Because seriously? Baby Gap is for chumps.

A source close to Victoria and Katie says, "They are both really excited about this new project. Katie recently sketched out some designs for a party dress for Suri's first birthday and Victoria saw there was the potential there for the two of them to come up with some great designs. As they are both mothers who love fashion, it couldn't have been more ideal for them."

I had to laugh when I read that Katie "sketched out some designs", and that Vic "saw the potential" in them (and not just because Katie Holmes has no personal style, although that's so obvious). I laughed because these women are so... boring. They're so simple. I mean, with the amount of free time and money available between the two of them, they could be halfway to eradicating poverty in Los Angeles County a year from now now if they put their minds to it. But hey, I guess looking out for the all the fashion-forward rich babies in the world is a job unto itself. And who better to do it than these two?

Reeeaaally Expensive Diaper Bags: What For?

Stefania Pomponi Butler (CityMama) — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 22:01:00 GMT

If you had $600 burning a whole in your pocket (and you were having a baby), would you spend it on a diaper bag? Even if I never had to worry about money, I could not justify spending $600 on something to haul diapers, wipes, and a spare set of clothes. Even still, you can't deny that the people who will drop the equivalent of a car payment on a diaper bag or a mortgage payment on a stroller are a desirable target-market for baby product manufacturers.

It's like shooting fish in a barrel, really. These uber-consumers already think "expensive equals better," so all sellers have to do is jack up the prices and people open their wallets. Don't these people have anything better to do than to spend money of ridiculous baby gear they will likely use for less than a year? Luxury goods manufacturers have caught onto this trend, and diaper bags are one way they can tap into this market.

When I say expensive diaper bags, I'm not talking about a "pedestrian" $160 Petunia Picklebottom backpack. Oh, no. Even Kate Spade's nylon diaper bag (the parenting status symbol of the '90's) seems a little...played out at this point. Still, it's $215. I'm talking about Dooney & Bourke's Signature Diaper Bag ($325), which is fugly. Or Nest's platinum leather and metal-studded monstrosity ($285). For everyone who thinks it's reasonable to spend $350 on Coach's "Healthy Child" bag (matching wallet $188), I say: You're bored. Find a hobby.

Pope: Ixnay on High-Tech Babymaking

Patti — Wed, 28 Feb 2007 00:14:00 GMT

He just wouldn't be Pope if he didn't feel comfortable getting all up in our uteri, would he? Over the weekend, Pope Benedict spoke out against "designer babies". Subjects of his displeasure included prenatal tests that detect defects or disorders (presumably because they might spur parents to terminate a pregnancy?) and artificial insemination (who knows?).

The guy might have a point about prenatal testing to an extent--as our own Karen recently noted. But given the issues that can be resolved much more easily if they are detected prenatally, I'd hesitate to throw this particular baby out with the bathwater. And God only knows what his problem with insemination is. Any thoughts?

"Designer Babies" : Not What You Think!

MetroDad — Sat, 23 Dec 2006 00:41:00 GMT

When I saw this headline today about 'designer babies', my first thoughts were "FINALLY! It's about time. I am so sick of those Costco babies!" Then, I realized that they were talking about a much more somber subject: creating made-to-order babies with genetic defects.

Over the past few years, there has been growing controversy over the morality of so-called "designer babies." Since advanced reproductive technologies allow parents and doctors to screen embryos for genetic disorders and select healthy embryos, there has been a valid fear that people would be able to use these technologies to modify embryos and purposefully select desirable or cosmetic characteristics for their unborn children. The crux of the ethical issue is pondering how far science should go in attempting to create the "perfect" baby.

Now, apparently for the first time, there is a controversy over doctors and parents choosing to do the opposite: in other words, using science NOT to create a perfectly healthy baby but rather to create made-to-order ones with genetic defects. To some parents with disabilities — say, deafness or dwarfism — this doesn't mean they're making "defective" babies. It just means they're making babies that are just like them! To refuse them to do so lessens what society thinks about their relative worth.

Although this would be technologically possible, it's undetermined whether any deaf or dwarf babies have been born yet as a result of PGD (Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis.) However, this latest wrinkle in the bioethics debate is causing quite a stir in many circles. As I'm sure thse types of debates will conitnue to grow as medical technology advances, it'll be interesting to see how it all plays out.