dearinter.netbeta

dear internet,

The powers that be, in the UK, are currently discussing revisions to the prevailing fertility laws. One of the many (contentious) topics under discussion is that the 'use' of saviour siblings (the whole concept of which I personally find appalling, a positive spin on a negative issue, to put it mildly) should be extended to treat a wider litany of diseases.

The difference between creating humans simply to 'serve', to aid others, and the rest of us, is that we have a choice. We can choose whether to aid, whether or not to donate that organ, the blood etc. One of the greatest freedoms we have is the freedom to choose, to express that choice. These babies are being created simply to serve to aid another human being, but without being given the choice to do so. It puts a completely different context on the theory natural selection, although one may argue that poverty does so anyway, and that this is simply another form of evolution.

The BBC quotes the committee (who are reviewing the Human Tissue and Embryos Bill) as saying, 'use of the technique should be widened to include not only life-threatening diseases, but also serious disease which had an on-going impact on quality of life'. I can't help wondering about the quality of life of the IVF baby created, ostensibly, for the sole purpose of prolonging/ aiding the life of another.

The question is this: Do you agree with creating IVF babies in order to use them to treat people who are ill?