To What Extent Should Parents Have Access to Prenatal Genetic Testing?


            Prenatal genetic testing for parents to screen traits of their future offspring has without a doubt been on the rise with new innovations in medicine. The extent that parents should be given access to this privilege is certainly not black and white. However, the reason that new parents seek out this service in the first place is important when determining how widely available this new trend should be made. When thinking about this question, the line between screening for life threatening birth defects and eugenics immediately comes to mind. But where does the line get crossed? Of course, in order to better prepare future parents for a child with a life altering or threatening disease such as Tay-Sachs, downs syndrome, cystic fibrosis, etc. prenatal genetic testing seems like a necessity. But what should the criteria be for undergoing this diagnosis? Eugenics or “designer babies” may not seem linked to screening for disease at first. However, it turns out that during Pre-Implementation Genetic Diagnosis, or checking the embryo for deficiencies before it is returned to the mother’s womb, certain physical alterations can be made to the fetus’ genes along the way. Because of this new trend, the line between traits stemming from the biological versus social is made even more complex.
            First, we must not ignore the possible beneficial outcomes of prenatal genetic testing. Parents should have the option to be well suited for the birth of a child that may have enormous difficulty functioning on their own or have a limited life expectancy. Regardless of what decision the mother chooses, in terms of continuing with her pregnancy, reaching out for guidance on the subject, or preparing both mentally and economically for a child with disabilities, all seem more than reasonable. Imagine the heartbreak of setting up a nursery, saving up for a child’s schooling, or having dreams of watching your son or daughter get married only to realize that they have little chance of living past the age of one. In fact, advice about choice eugenics has actually become a large part of prenatal care given by doctors to better inform their patients (Hubbard and Newman). Since we have the science to prevent these hopes and dreams from getting crushed in the first place, many doctors and patients alike agree that we should be able to use it.
            On the other hand, this idea of choice eugenics has its pitfalls and even a hidden agenda. Because prenatal genetic testing has become so widespread in the fertility for profit industry, some doctors have actually been sued for putting too much pressure on their patients to terminate or alter a pregnancy that may result in a child with genetic deficiencies (Hubbard and Newman). This also raises the question of the role of the doctor in situations like so--where does one’s doctor stand in the fine line between giving unbiased, helpful advice and pushing a mother to do something she doesn’t want to? Such decisions that parents are forced to confront brought on by testing can often be virtually impossible for a mother to be to make--“modern prenatal care treats pregnant women not as expectant mothers but as managers of fetal risk profiles” (Samerski 2007). Modern prenatal care, even without the eugenics aspect, puts more added pressure on the mother for an obvious reason: she can’t simply wait for the baby to be born and hope for the best. Even the rise of ultra sounds and check ups can put mothers in a state of “tentative pregnancy”  (Samerski), because if prenatal tests do not have an income that indicates a perfectly healthy child, the expectant mother must now consider an abortion. Specifically, the mother is turned into even more of a liability because the mother’s own traits are used as a risk assessment factor. For instance, women over thirty five are labeled much more at risk of having a child with downs syndrome, and young women under eighteen are deemed at risk because of a predetermined lack of stability in the future child’s home life. Maybe the most important thing to consider is that prenatal testing can back expectant mothers into a corner, or a “one-way street”, because a positive test result for disease can only provide reasons for terminating the pregnancy (Samerski), not keeping it.
            The idea of fertility as a commodity certainly cannot be ignored when speaking about the links between modern prenatal care, genetic screening, and eugenics. With so many products, foods, and services designed to help women’s bodies become more fertile, becoming pregnant in today’s society can leave a prospective mother’s wallet empty very easily. “The German maternity passport, a handheld pregnancy record capturing all medical data, lists fifty-two factors that immediately classify a pregnant woman of being at risk…the list is so broad and vague that roughly three out of four pregnancies are now diagnosed as being at risk” (Samerski, Schwarz and Shucking). Thus, a whopping seventy-five percent of women will most likely spend extra money trying to determine the possible outcome of their offspring because they are deemed in this “at-risk” category. This means that the prenatal care industry is already making money based on the anxiety of mothers that have no real, proven risks for failed pregnancies, without even touching upon the rise of designer babies. By playing on the innate fears and concerns of soon to be mothers, the business of giving birth yields an overwhelming profit all on its own.
            Another large factor in the politics of the prenatal eugenics movement is cost. While pre-birth screening costs skyrocket, it seems as if lower socioeconomic class citizens are left out of the loop, as they already struggle with paying for routine check ups and ultrasounds. Thus, these super human designer babies are specific to mostly white, upper class families, which has dangerous implications for the future of society if this trend continues. Not only will class and race divides further separate, but racism toward minorities, especially those in inner cities with a lack of health care, will greatly worsen because of the new physical and intellectual prowess that the white upper class would emanate. Because of this, genetic counseling arises as a whole new technique of social engineering. “As genetic counseling exemplifies, prenatal decision making does not increase a woman’s autonomy, nor does it bring her closer to her desire: a healthy or at least “normal” child. Instead, “the pregnant woman is both disempowered and held responsible at the same time” (Samerski, Balsamo 1996, 110). Now, minority women feel even more disempowered when they do not have the same access to genetic modification and screening as upper class white women do.












            As if pre-existing racism isn’t bad enough (i.e the “genocide” of black babies), using prenatal genetic testing as a gateway for eugenics would not only create unfair and often unattainable physical standards for future generations, but leave those who can’t afford access to this movement behind as well. Without some form of government regulation, the poor would not have any sort of access. Furthermore, even if regulations and restrictions were put in place towards the extent of eugenics used and the cost, the production of designer babies would most likely still be made available underground to those that could afford it. Thus, we are left with a society of “normal” minorities left to make due with their unmodified traits, and a new wave of these mostly Caucasian super humans. Now, of course this would be a problem of the far future, but it is crucial to prevent something like this from happening. With the goal of making the human race stronger and more intelligence, history could easily repeat itself if we are not aware of the risks involved with overly screening our babies for the fear that their genes might carry anything below perfection.
            So, to what extent exactly should parents have access to this service? This question relates back to the tired and true debate of biological determinism versus social constructionism. The most serious issue with extensive prenatal genetic screening may be that people’s biology would stem from their social circumstances. If one’s parents have well paying jobs and are of higher socioeconomic status, desirable biological traits can essentially be bought and sold. Regardless of whether these physical attributes are added to the fetus for protection from diseases or eye color, where does it end? Health and aesthetics can often overlap, and these boundaries aren’t nearly as clear as they may seem. For example, a mother to be might go in for a procedure to protect her child against Tay-Sachs disease because the baby’s father is of Jewish descent, but with that same procedure she might also be tempted to modify traits that are not technically classified as a disease, such as obesity. Throughout any pregnancy, it is more important now than ever to develop a healthy skepticism when buying into curiosity about the outcome of the child’s physical traits. As long as the mother is reassured that her child’s life is not immediately threatened, and her own life is not at risk, a more natural approach is much more beneficial for society at large. After all, trying to control a society genetically worked out miserably the last time--if doctors and scientists keep history in mind they might just come to the conclusion that the human race is already getting more intelligent and physically able with time. 


Written by Leigh Bentson



Works Cited

Hubbard, Ruth, and Stuart Newman. "Yuppie Eugenics." Z Magazine. March 2002: n. page. Web. 30 Apr. 2012. <http://www.zcommunications.org/yuppie-eugenics-by-ruth-hubbard-and-stuart-newman>.

Samerski, Silja. "Genetic Counseling and the Fiction of Choice: Taught Self Determination as a new technique of Social Engineering ." Chicago Journals. 2009: n. page. Web. 30 Apr. 2012.