>The Guardian contains an op-ed piece by Lord Robert Winston of the UK declaring that that Nation’s regulation of in vitro fertilization should stop. He questions, But why should this one treatment area be singled out? and then complains:
The 1990 Act emphasises that clinicians must regard the welfare of any child that might be born after treatment. This is unique to IVF; it doesn’t apply to other fertility practice. It is undesirable in principle because it risks injustice, and unworkable in practice because nobody can forecast the future.
In fact, IVF was/is the first technological, intentional and purposeful intervention that could in reality change who and what it is to be human. Past eugenic efforts failed because of the lack of specificity and sensitivity, while both of these qualities are increasing due to IVF and all its variations and outgrowths.
The ultimate subjects of the treatment did not exist when the treatment began. They, their children – and our children who will marry and bear children with them – had no chance to consent.
No one could have given informed consent.
We have real-life examples of the outcomes of manipulation with plant and animal life and the enviroment when diversity is artificially reduced by human manipulation.
The outcome of reducing the diversity of the manipulators would call at least for caution and regulation.
(Another viewpoint may be seen at Blog.Bioethics.net