'Designer baby' ban quashed


The Hashmis say they are simply trying to help their son
A ban on a couple creating a baby to help save their child has been overturned by the Court of Appeal.
Four-year-old Zain Hashmi has the rare blood disorder thalassaemia and requires a bone marrow transplant.

He can be treated with blood transfusions but, over time, the amount of iron in the body can build to dangerous levels.

His parents, Raj and Shahana, want doctors to use pioneering IVF technology to screen embryos to find one that will provide a perfect match for him.

This is a legitimate use of these new techniques

Suzi Leather, HFEA
The family will now be able to go ahead with treatment "without delay" after the general ruling on Tuesday by Lord Phillips, the Master of the Rolls, Lord Justice Schieman and Lord Justice Mann.

The family have said they are "thrilled" at the decision.

'No floodgate'

The Appeal Court decision overturns a High Court ruling in December last year that Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) the did not have the power to license the technique under existing legislation.

It followed a challenge by Josephine Quintavalle, of the public interest group Comment on Reproductive Ethics (Core).

The ruling will allow other families in a similar situation to the Hashmis apply to be able to use the tissue-typing technique.

But the HFEA said strict regulations were in place and the decision would not open the floodgates for babies "designed" for social reasons, such as eye colour.

Suzi Leather, chair of the HFEA, said: "We are pleased that the Court of Appeal has upheld our decision.

"This means that the Hashmi family can continue with their treatment.

"Clearly clinicians cannot always prevent diseases but if they are able to and also save the life of a sibling, then this is a legitimate use of these new techniques."

Case by case

Dr Simon Fishel, of Nottingham's Centres for Assisted Reproduction, who is treating the family, said: "I am absolutely delighted for the Hashmis in particular and all our other patients who wish to remain in the UK for their treatment.

"I am relieved that this judgement, once and for all, supports the HFEA as the proper regulatory body for licensing these technologies."

He added: "From the public¿s point of view they should have no fear because cases such as the Hashmis and the procedures involved will remain highly regulated by the HFEA and strict conditions will apply to all couples seeking this treatment on a case by case basis."

Before the hearing, Shahana Hashmi said: "We believe that we are doing is the right thing for Zain. He has a right to life.

"Any suffering he has can be alleviated through medical science."

Josephine Quintavalle, spokeswoman for Core, said: "We have absolute compassion for Zain Hashmi and any baby born or unborn who suffers from the disease which afflicts him.

"We hope that ethical cures in stem cell therapies (or otherwise) will come quickly to the relief of all such sufferers.

"But designing another child as a therapeutic commodity, as a tissue bank, is definitely not an ethical cure."

Zain currently receives a drug treatment to keep his iron levels down which has to be given for 12 hour periods, five nights a week in addition to monthly blood transfusions.

The Hashmis have sought a bone marrow donor for their son, but no genetic match has so far been found.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/2928655.stm

is this morally right, i understand their desire to save a son, but is it justified in making a life for this sole purpose...with no intent on letting it flourish?

i dont think it is ethical... but since when has THAT stopped anyone?

i know, but just the concept, to have a child for the sole purpose of sucking out it's marrow? As much as i love my children, i wouldn't do anything like that...i don't think i could live with myself knowing i killed one of my children for another one to live...if one is meant to die, who am i to mess with fate?

all i can think of is Christopher (CHRIS) Reeve on south park the other week... "slluuuuuurrrrrrrppp"

why not create a brain-dead living organism? what makes it so unethical? because it is a human life? if it is brain-dead then there is practically no life anyway....where does ethics come in to play? what makes a human life so much more fucking valuable than any other life?

i believe that was the premise behind Heinline's clones in 'time enough for love'... but if we can engineer a brain dead organism, id rather just engineer the organ necessary and not have to go through the ethical dilemma of pulling the plug on a brain.

The only reason I exist is because my Mom wanted to force my Dad into marrying her...how's that for ethical? I don't think it matters much, people will always have babies for the wrong reasons, and I think it's better to die young than to have a really shitty life.

true rogue, too true....what would be the point of creating bodies with brains, hence possibly a soul?, if all we need is there organs.......yet, since i do not find it unethical, why not just start picking bums off the street....might as well find some use for those dirty fucks anyway......

From what I heard they never intended to use the baby as a donor, they are going to use the placenta (which is made up of stem cells) to help their other son.

well if it's just the placenta, that's okay, but having a baby just to kill it?

why not? it can not possibly suffer as much as adults.....garnted suffering may be involved, yet all creatures suffer in some way or another, alot of innocent creatures...