She compared the new techniques to replacing a defective ‘battery pack’ in a cell that would virtually eliminate the chance of a severe disease in the child.
She said: ‘Scientists have developed ground-breaking new procedures which could stop these diseases being passed on, bringing hope to many families seeking to prevent their future children inheriting them.
‘She’ is of course the Government’s Chief Medical Officer ‘Dame’ Sally Davies, and she was talking about the latest ‘gee-whiz’ idea that is destined to remove the ‘tragedy’ of inherited disease from future generations through the Frankenstein process of swapping faulty DNA for normal DNA in the future mother’s egg. This process would of course result in a child who has three parents’ DNA in their own make-up. A process which could not happen in anything else than a scientist’s laboratory and test-tube. A process which can only be described as unnatural in the extreme!
We see ourselves today as being on the edge of unreality, with the ability to shape a whole generation of children ‘in our own image’, and it is not, in my own humble opinion, a good place to be. It could be, and indeed is being argued, that if we can remove the very chance of certain deformities and life-threatening conditions before the child is born, we should do everything we can to remove any such chance. But we have to accept that we, as members of the ‘human race’, are the product of millions of years of evolution, and those thirty-odd strands of DNA which are the target of this obscene research have evolved over millennia, and they should remain unchanged; because how are we to know the end result of altering DNA strands which have been built over millennia?
We were told when abortion was first discussed in both Westminster and the salons of the ‘chattering classes’ in Islington and Notting Hill that the only reasons for the abortion of babies were to
be of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman or any existing children of her family;, or grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman; or the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk to the life of the pregnant woman, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated; or the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped.
I do not believe that those reasons can be tabulated as against today, where we have virtual abortion on demand! It could well be argued that the only person to be considered is that of the future mother, and I for one lean towards that argument in reality, but, and it is a big ‘but’, the safeguards have been virtually diminished as to be non-existent.
We are told that the possibility of the so-called ‘designer baby’ is not possible, with all the checks and balances and assessments to be built in to the system, but we all know whjat happens to the ‘Checks and balances’ when politicians are involved, as well as when ‘Cheques’ are involved as well! The argument for this DNA swap to be undertaken is that the future children of a holder of such DNA will be free of the possibility of the illnesses or diseases or disabilities which may occur if the DNA had not been altered. I would counter with a simple argument of my own, one which is not heard as much as the many arguments opposing it; but which is just as valid: if the mother is found to have these ‘defective genes’, why not go down the route of not procreating children in the first place, and then there would be no further chance of a child with a mitochondrial disorder in the first place?