The medical risk-benefit calculus changes when people choose to do IVF for the sole purpose of undergoing PGT-P (still unvalidated and of limited utility) as opposed to adding PGT-P to patients already undergoing IVF for purposes of infertility or PGT-M. Additional ethical issues include who pays for it? And if it’s the patients themselves, who would have access to the technology? I understand that this latter point is not different than the situation with IVF in general in the U.S. and many parts of the world today. Still as long as patients are counseled appropriately, they should have the autonomy to make that choice. As a physician though, I would in general not actively recommend a procedure with known potentially significant risks (IVF) for purposes of a technology with unproven benefits (PGT-P).
“...relying on novel technologies to prioritize embryo transfer is ethically acceptable, but discarding embryos based on these unproven technological advances is not.”
I'm afraid this is an argument long since made irrelevant by public policy. In most of the world abortion is legal for any reason or no reason. Abortion in this case being inflicted most often on a viable--implanted the old way--fetus of some duration, not a blastocyst (or in vitro fetus)--and for those we have the "morning after" pill or in this case, the trash can.
Science gave us the the ability of life over death (really visa versa). Politics decided the legal uses of the science. it's too late for your moral concerns now. Deal with it. It's really the parents' "moral" concern at this point. Welcome to Huxley's "Brave New World".
The medical risk-benefit calculus changes when people choose to do IVF for the sole purpose of undergoing PGT-P (still unvalidated and of limited utility) as opposed to adding PGT-P to patients already undergoing IVF for purposes of infertility or PGT-M. Additional ethical issues include who pays for it? And if it’s the patients themselves, who would have access to the technology? I understand that this latter point is not different than the situation with IVF in general in the U.S. and many parts of the world today. Still as long as patients are counseled appropriately, they should have the autonomy to make that choice. As a physician though, I would in general not actively recommend a procedure with known potentially significant risks (IVF) for purposes of a technology with unproven benefits (PGT-P).
“...relying on novel technologies to prioritize embryo transfer is ethically acceptable, but discarding embryos based on these unproven technological advances is not.”
I'm afraid this is an argument long since made irrelevant by public policy. In most of the world abortion is legal for any reason or no reason. Abortion in this case being inflicted most often on a viable--implanted the old way--fetus of some duration, not a blastocyst (or in vitro fetus)--and for those we have the "morning after" pill or in this case, the trash can.
Science gave us the the ability of life over death (really visa versa). Politics decided the legal uses of the science. it's too late for your moral concerns now. Deal with it. It's really the parents' "moral" concern at this point. Welcome to Huxley's "Brave New World".