• JUser: :_load: Unable to load user with ID: 1315

The first designer baby in France exploited to serve eugenic legislative evolution.

Published on 02/08/2011 in Scientific research

peurAbusively presented as a medical prowess, designer babies are only the fruit of an unnecessary and deceitful, doubly eugenic technique.

1. Designer babies : a doubly eugenic technique

Authorized by the 2004 law on bioethics, on an experimental basis, using designer baby’s means sorting through embryos twice. First, the embryos, carriers of the disease of the older brother or sister, need to be eliminated. Then, within the healthy stock of embryos, a second sorting is carried out in which only the embryos which are compatible for the considered transplant are kept. This means that eliminating healthy embryos, which will not get the chance to serve in the transplant, is explicitly accepted. This is dual regression. In order to obtain an embryo which meets expectations, it has been evaluated that around 100 « non-compatible » embryos must be sorted through and eliminated.

2.Designer babies: an unnecessary technique

It is even more important to refuse these evolutions as the development of cord blood banks make designer babies unnecessary.  It is, actually, possible to look through the cord blood transplants to find which one can cure such or such pathology.

It must be remembered that the current lack of cord blood, leading to difficulties for HLA- compatible transplants (for that, diversified samples are needed), can be explained by the non-clairvoyant political choices made in the early years of 2000, regarding the organization of this activity. This politic resignation must not be renewed in 2011.

3. Designer baby : a deceitful technique

The 2004 law had limited the usage of this technique to a 5 years experiment.

The sustainability of this technique rests on a lie. The designer baby technique was meant to be experimented, then evaluated, before eventually been renewed or stopped. It has not been the case since this technique has not lead anywhere since 2004 (cf. the Council of State’s report regarding the revision of the 2004 law on bioethics). Adding it, definitively, to the list of acts to which one can have recourse is, therefore, intellectually dishonest, a medical risk and a political weakness.

Finally, it must be reminded that in 2004 this technique, which the majority did not want back then, was introduced by an amendment of the opposition. It can be noted that, in 2011, the same opposition blindly validated this transgression, through the person who did the report on the bill (Deputy Jean Léonnetti).

Will the political choices in 2011 ensure the continuity of 2004, eugenic and founded on media manipulation, or will it privilege solid ethical orientations, demonstrating clear thinking and courage?

News of the Jérôme Lejeune Foundation about the review of the law on bioethics.



Subscribe to our newsletter