Rebecca Duffett reports

Rebecca Duffett

There's been a lot of discussion over the past week or so about whether people should be offered pre-pregnancy DNA tests, to highlight any potential illnesses that could be passed onto their children. The Government's advisory body on genetics has ruled there are 'no specific social, ethical or legal principles' against such screening, and so we could see such tests being offered on the NHS in the future.

Preconception screening is not a new idea, and is already done for people with a known genetic illness such as cystic fibrosis or sickle cell disease. But following the governments approval of the tests, it's been recommended that everyone could be given that option - to help them plan for any potential problems.

Family doctor Chris Steele thinks it's a good idea: "It's not testing the unborn baby inside the womb, it's testing parents who want to start a family to see if they are 'silent carriers'"

Josephine Quintavalle from Comment on Reproductive Ethics (CORE) agrees that the tests in themselves are not unethical, but has concerns about how people may respond in light of any negative results: "The problems lie when they will decide not to have their children naturally, but to go to the IVF clinic and create embryos and test the embryos in the clinic and discard those that are carrying disease, that's when the ethical problems arise".

She also warns that we need to consider the accuracy of tests and the liklihood of children being born without complications even with 'silent carrier' parents: "There's presumption that these tests are first of all 100% accurate, but also that they mean because we've identified a particular gene, any offspring you have will have that condition - that's not the case either! Many of these issues are increasing your likelihood but it's not 100%".

Environmental and lifestyle factors also contribute to the development of medical conditions, and even if it may appear that we have eradicated illnesses in our DNA, this doesn't mean we won't ever have to deal with them as a result of our diets, exercise and surroundings.

Then there's another issue - eugenics!

This is the practice of trying to improve the genetic composition of a population - commonly associated with the Holocaust.

Thomas Moore is a Health Correspondent and he acknowledged that people have concerns, "This could eliminate some disabled children from society and some people are uncomfortable about that".

Josephine believes there could be serious implications on some individuals: "Every time we promote these ideas of trying to create a perfect child, I think we're diminishing the value of those people who will have genetic conditions and they're made to feel very much that they would have been better off not being born. It's sort of scientific eugenics for today, but it's no different from trying to eliminate the disabled of the past, which when you go back to Nazi time, the first people the Nazi's tried to get rid of were children with disabilities".

Dr Frances Flint from the Human Genetics Commission completely disagrees with these concerns: "The prime aim of this is not to eradicate genetic disease, it's to allow people to have more information so they can make a choice and I in-visage that in the future people will have the opportunity to be tested for a greater number of conditions so they can make plans in advance".

But what could these plans involve?

Josephine outlines a common response to receiving bad news about the health of an unborn child: "Every time a test is done and you're given a result, then there's an obligation to give you your options - you could have an abortion or you could do this, or you could do that, but it's quite worrying how abortion nearly always comes top of the list when people are being given counseling on this front".

Some of the most common diseases that could be picked up by the tests include Downs syndrome, sickle cell disease and cystic fibrosis. Jo Osmond from the Cystic Fibrosis Trust suggests why some people do decide to go ahead with abortions in light of finding out their baby is affected by the illness: "There's no doubt that in spite of the significant advances that have been made in the treatment and care of people with Cystic Fibrosis, that to have a child with the disease has a significant burden and significant impact on the family and on the individual themselves".