In this blog post, I’d like to examine the ethical issues surrounding designer babies—ranging from the birth of designer babies for therapeutic purposes to embryo selection and disposal, the human rights and freedom of choice of designer babies, the potential for misuse of the technology, and social inequality.
There is a movie called ‘My Sister’s Keeper’ that tells the story of Anna, a younger sister born to provide bone marrow and stem cells for her older sister Kate’s leukemia treatment.
Stories like this, which seem like they could only happen in movies, have actually occurred in real life. A long time ago in the United States, a “designer” baby named Adam Nash was born. To save their daughter Molly, who was suffering from Fanconi anemia, the Nashes decided to have a child by using preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) to find an embryo that lacked the genetic defect causing Fanconi anemia and was a tissue-type match for Molly. They successfully increased Molly’s chances of survival by transfusing blood collected from Adam’s umbilical cord into her. The “designer baby” technology brought the Nashes two gifts: the birth of their beloved son Adam and their daughter Molly’s good health. But is Adam’s birth truly unproblematic from an ethical standpoint?
A “designer baby” refers to a child conceived through in vitro fertilization (IVF), in which embryos are created and screened using “preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD)” to select a normal embryo—one free of genetic defects and possessing specific genetic traits—for implantation. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis is a technique that analyzes the genetic information of a fertilized egg—obtained through in vitro fertilization of sperm and an egg—before implanting it into the uterus. It involves removing one or two embryonic cells to examine their genetic information and implanting only the “healthy” fertilized eggs. This method inherently allows for the disposal of “unhealthy” fertilized eggs. This is where the ethical issue arises. Is it truly right to deny all rights—including the right to life—based on the premise of birth, simply because a zygote has a genetic defect or a high likelihood of developing a disease? Some argue that the right to life possessed by a living being that has already developed into an individual is more important than the rights of a living being that has not yet reached that stage. However, there is also the view that since a zygote is the beginning of life and possesses complete genetic information—and will become a human being like us once external conditions are met—it should be considered human from the moment of conception. According to one survey, 39.1% of respondents believed that a zygote acquires human status from the moment of fertilization, while only 16.9% viewed it as a mere cluster of cells. Therefore, I believe that such actions could amount to destroying one life—an embryo—for the sake of another life, namely the patient’s.
Now, to consider the human rights of a person born as a “designer baby” after being selected as an embryo, let’s return to the movie ‘My Sister’s Keeper’, mentioned earlier, and reflect on the life of Anna, who was born as a designer baby to treat her older sister. From the moment she was born, Anna had no choice but to provide her bone marrow and stem cells for her sister’s treatment. She might even spend her entire life shuttling back and forth to the hospital for her sister’s sake. What is clear is that Anna will live her life prioritizing her sister’s treatment—even though she did not want to—and that this will impose restrictions on her ability to live the life she desires. We can also see that Anna’s natural rights have been violated through the concept of natural rights, which states, “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” So, can Anna’s human rights and right to choose truly be infringed upon simply because her fate was determined—without any consent—solely on the grounds that she was an embryo incapable of thought or speech? I believe this is the most significant issue that arises when parents have a “designer baby” for the purpose of treating a child. While I can understand the feelings of parents who, due to the limitations of medical technology, had no choice but to select a “designer baby” to treat their beloved child, choosing a “designer baby” might also inflict an even greater, indelible emotional wound on another child.
Another problem is that, as the term “designer baby” suggests, this technology could be misused to design a baby exactly as the parents wish. This goes beyond the treatment of fatal diseases to include selecting a baby’s gender and, furthermore, creating “cosmetically enhanced” designer babies with attractive appearances or highly intelligent children. In fact, Dr. Jeff Steinberg, a fertility specialist in Los Angeles, has announced plans to expand the scope of genetic testing to allow parents to select even physical characteristics—such as a child’s gender, eye color, and hair color—according to their preferences. As more parents design babies in this way to have only those who meet their desired specifications, the selection criteria will become increasingly diverse, and all embryos that fail to meet those standards will be discarded. If the discarding of embryos becomes commonplace, the dignity of life will inevitably plummet.
If, in the future, the technology for creating custom-designed babies becomes commercially available—leading to a society where anyone with enough money can easily have a custom-designed baby—even greater problems will arise. The wealth gap caused by money will directly lead to differences in children’s genetic capabilities. Society will be divided into those born as custom-designed babies who are genetically superior and those who are not; even if they possess the same abilities, the latter will face discrimination. People, hoping to spare their children from such discrimination, will increasingly opt for designer babies; and as this happens, discrimination will intensify, leading us toward a society indistinguishable from the caste systems of the past. We would end up with a society like the one depicted in the movie ‘Gattaca’, where opportunities are reserved only for those with superior genes. However, the direction we should pursue is not a society filled with “superior” people, but one where we understand each other’s differences and work to bridge them.
People often say that becoming pregnant is a blessing from heaven. Literally, the birth of life is a value that is dignified in and of itself—one that cannot be achieved through human choice—and no one can challenge human dignity. While designer babies created for therapeutic purposes may seem to offer many benefits, life should not be treated as if it were subject to economic principles, where gains and losses are weighed against one another. Although this technology brings many benefits, we must continue to question it from an ethical standpoint, as it infringes upon human rights and carries the risk of abuse. I believe this technology will by no means guarantee us a disease-free, hopeful future.
