Tag: Preimplantation genetic diagnosis

The companies Genomic Prediction and MyOme have come up with two new pre-implantation diagnosis “options”. Pre-implantation diagnosis or PID is a technique that was developed thirty years ago. It provides an option to carry out a genetic test on embryos fertilised in vitro to eliminate those with genetic diseases such as cystic fibrosis, and to implant only those considered “healthy”. Genomic Prediction and MyOme have conducted embryo selection research involving more and more criteria, which not only extends the number of disorders being tested for but also paves the way to sorting embryos according to physical (hair or eye colour) or intellectual features. The “novelty” involves sorting embryos according to criteria focussing on several genes at once.

 

The two new potential “options” are:

– genetic testing of both parents and embryos using a computerised algorithm to “establish a more comprehensive embryo chromosome profile”,

– DNA sequencing of the embryo, the result of which will be subjected to automated learning algorithms capable of identifying patterns in the DNA that could possibly be linked to the risk of developing diseases such as cancer.

 

These tests could soon be available in US fertility clinics. The two companies believe that it is now “technically feasible” to sort embryos according to their future intelligence quotient (IQ), stating that “we’re not doing this to eliminate less intelligent babies”. They refuse to provide intelligence analyses on “ethical grounds” but warn against “less scrupulous” companies. They will nevertheless perform PID based on the criterion of “psychological disorder”.

New scientist (15/11/2018); Medical press (16/11/2018)

Pre-implantation diagnostics have been carried out since the 1990s to detect chromosomal anomalies in embryos prior to implantation. Several techniques have been devised for this purpose.

 

Polar body biopsies were initially carried out prior to fertilisation. Polar bodies or globules are cells formed during egg maturation, which disappear after fertilisation. They should have the same number of chromosomes as the egg. Since the technique used to screen for chromosomal anomalies involving polar body biopsy is difficult, the method has “never become popular”.

 

Another procedure, namely embryo biopsy three days post-fertilisation, was widely used until the American Society for Reproductive Medicine declared it ineffective in 2008. Given the fact that interest in this technique persists (attributing failure to inadequate technologies), version 2.0 involving embryo biopsies at the blastocyst stage was developed without prior validation studies.

 

However, by postponing the biopsy—in this case three days post-fertilisation at the blastocyst stage—the number of false positives increases because the embryo itself corrects mutations which could appear during initial cell divisions. Version 2.0 therefore led to the destruction of a large number of embryos “in error“. The Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis International Society found itself forced to publish new directives in 2016. But the latter impose totally arbitrary and insignificant limits for separating “normal embryos” from abnormal ones.

 

After two decades of use, which have not been clinically proven by pre-implantation screening, thousands of “normal” embryos have been eliminated, according to Doctor Norbert Gleicher, Medical Director of the Center for Human Reproduction in New York.

Bionews, Norbert Gleicher (11/12/2017)

A study presented at the Annual Congress of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine in Texas, has shown that new generation sequencing (NGS), “deemed to be the future of in-vitro fertilisation”, would “not be beneficial” for most patients. This “treatment”, which is available in the United Kingdom at a cost of €4,500, is a pre-implantation diagnostic technique launched in 2013. Practitioners sequence the genome of embryos obtained by in-vitro fertilisation and eliminate those presenting with an “anomaly”. This technique is believed to increase the IVF success rate by limiting the transfer of  “abnormal” embryos.

 

 However, the study which has involved 588 women between 25 and 40 years of age in 34 clinics across four different countries reveals the opposite, much to the surprise of the scientists involved. NGS could, however, prove “useful” for the few older women receiving MAP. Other experts suggest that this conclusion can probably be attributed to the poor implementation of NGS in the clinics in question rather than to the technique per se.

The Telegraph, , Henry Bodkin (30/10/2017)

 

Scientists at Adelaide University (Southern Australia) have published a study on a new pre-implantation screening technique in the  Human Reproduction journal. This technique sorts embryos at an early stage, based on their cell metabolism, and is currently being tested in cattle.

 

Whereas “pre-implantation screening is generally carried out under a normal microscope“, this new, non-invasive technique uses hyperspectral imaging. It involves measuring the light naturally produced by active embryo cells. Through analysis, scientists can now identify the embryo’s metabolic and chemical processes, and sort them using more “objective” criteria than before. According to Dr Mel Sutton-McDowall, principal author of the study, the technique can be used to “predict whether embryos with a homogeneous (uniform) metabolic cell profile are the healthiest“. She refers to “discrimination within the embryos”.

 

The team of scientists hope that this technique will be applied to both human IVF and the agricultural breeding sector to “improve herd quality” and “maximise production in the agricultural sector“. Dr Sutton believes that “this technique is extremely promising ” and “this innovative approach” will “soon be commercially available“, since it “improves women’s chances [of pregnancy]” whilst reducing costs.

Medical Xpress (29/08/17)

While complex technologies, popularized by the media, are encroaching upon living science, from Crispr-Case 9 to the gene drive, we can see that “the eugenic perspective” of such applications is open to criticism. However, as biologist Jacques Testart pointed out in an article published in Le Monde, these techniques are far from being controlled. This type of editing methodology is endeavouring “to make the impossible possible: the stress caused triggers uncontrolled traces in the form of mutations and epimutations”.

 

However, a 2016 study [1] revealed the possibility of making gametes, “reproductive” cells from iPS cells. The study, which was limited to experiments in mice, paved the way for “producing embryos in unlimited quantities”. For the biologist, the gap “between the soma (cell line for body functions) and the germ line (line of gametes for procreation) is a considerable achievement for fundamental knowledge and research, but it also promises intervention in animals and humans”. Eventually, it paves the way for “procreation by sterile individuals or homosexuals or even auto-procreation”.

 

This alternative to genome handling, which is currently dominating the media, poses an ethical question which is overlooked during debates: “What are the eugenic consequences of human gamete production in abundance? ”  It is, however, crucial because “‘simple’, rigorous, extensive selection would be likely to lead to species modelling without genome-modifying risks inherent in handling procedures – risks that have just come to light with Crispr”, as explained by Jacques Testart. “The genetic tool currently available and the anticipated profusion of target embryos could alter the human species over a few generations”.

 

According to Jacques Testart, “consider the upheaval if IVF no longer imposed painful medical procedures on women (apart from tissue sampling) and if, at the same time, it could eliminate numerous genetic features deemed to be undesirable, or even select desirable features”[2].

 

In this process, pre-implant diagnosis (PID), which allows the selection during IVF of “one (or more) [embryos] devoid of a suspect genetic characteristic and the transplantation of the embryo(s) into the uterus of the mother-to-be”,  plays a crucial role. As far as Jacques Testart is concerned, “as soon as an effective, painless and safe methodology for selecting a child becomes available, all other options will be disregarded and the influx of couples will saturate bioclinical services”. Furthermore, “the criteria selected will converge towards a more or less medical or social norm” leading to a “drastic reduction in diversity”.

 

Although such developments should benefit the health economy given “the anticipated reduction in the frequency of serious diseases through birth pre-selection”, it “could lead to disillusion, especially on an individual basis”. Given this context, “differences or deviations from the norm, including behavioural and mental disorders, would prove intolerable” and “authoritarian spin-offs in the name of collective well-being” cannot be ruled out.

 

This future doesn’t seem that far off – nowadays “all stages in the human selection process are being implemented”.

 

And although this concept of eugenics “currently has two opposing facets,” the potential for altering the species” has not been overlooked. “It is precisely this potential that could nurture embryo sorting”. This aspect concerns Jacques Testart because, “with an air of indifference, we are paving the way for the selection of human beings from biogeneticists’ test tubes”.

 

[1] See “Murine reproduction without eggs?”

[2] These developments are nowadays facing two obstacles – a currently insufficient cell yield on the one hand, and “more importantly”, the need to “check that reconversions imposed on cells and necessary handling techniques are unlikely to impact on the normality and health of the unborn child”.

Le Monde diplomatique (Juillet 2017)

Dernier pas vers la sélection humaine

The Federal Council has confirmed a review of medically assisted procreation (MAP) legislation adopted in Switzerland on 5 June 2016 (see Pre-implantation diagnosis authorised in Switzerland). Pre-implantation diagnosis will come into force on 1 September [1]. It can be used for couples with a  “serious hereditary disease” with access to MAP. The law does not define the concept of “serious disease” but, according to the explanations provided by the Federal Council, these would include “serious psychological disorders, permanent dependency on significant items of equipment, such as oxygen cylinders, severely restricted mobility or severe pain proving refractory to treatment”. PID will also be used to detect Down syndrome and other chromosomal abnormalities. The law bans “embryo selection in an attempt to influence gender or other characteristics unless the risk of transmission of a serious disease can be avoided using a different method”. The selection of “baby medication”, embryo used to donate stem cells to a brother or sister with an incurable disease”,remains prohibited.

 

The government believes that approximately  “500 to 1,000 couples could use pre-implantation diagnosis every year whereas there are 6,000 attempts at assisted procreation”. The test will not be refunded by statutory health insurance.

 

The reviewed legislation also authorises the development of twelve embryos per MAP treatment cycle as opposed to three in the past, thus authorising the preservation of these embryos for 5 years with a single 5-year extension, “if the couple still want to have a child“. Otherwise, the frozen embryos will be destroyed or used for human embryo stem cell research.  Last but not least, the law authorises the use of donor sperm after the donor’s death.

 

For further information:

 

• “PID does not seek to reduce the handicap but to eliminate the disabled”
• The Swissagree to authorise PID
• In  Switzerland, videos to understand the issues of PID
• Switzerland: disabled persons’ organisations unite against PID

 

[1] “One or more cells are harvested from an embryo conceived in vitro and analysed prior to implementation in the uterus” in an attempt to  “detect the presence of any anomalies” and eliminate any potential carrier embryos. 

Tribune de Genève (21/06/2017)

Stéphane Viville, “infertility specialist”[1], published an article in Le Monde in which he denounced “certain tests (…) available to and paid for by patients, in a large number of French in-vitro fertilisation centres”, the “real interest and reliability of which” have not been proven. He opposes the recommendation advocated by some of his colleagues “to carry out extensive genetic tests allowing thorough analysis of the genome of embryos produced by IVF”.

 

“In some countries, the practice of MAP is a lucrative business first and foremost”, he noted. Some couples “are ready to spend unlimited amounts to reach their goal”: namely, “to have” a child. Thus the “desire to have a child” expressed by these couples boosts the MAP market and the “number of innovations claiming to increase pregnancy rates and reduce the length of time to the birth of a healthy baby is constantly rising”. However,“for the vast majority” of these new tests, “there is no concrete evidence to confirm proven, tangible benefits in fertility treatment”.

 

Referring to the repeated requests made by Professor Frydman, Stéphane Viville is also “in favour of a ‘plan to counter infertility’” but refuses to justify extended pre-implantation screening given the increased risk of chromosomal abnormalities currently screened during the third trimester of pregnancy. The medical interest of genetic tests which, in Professor Frydman’s opinion, should be used more widely has not been borne out by “sound scientific data”: “all studies highlighting the ‘positive effect of this analysis’ base their findings on an efficacy evaluation following embryo transfer as opposed to a couple’s overall treatment. Studies taking this criterion into account conclude a lack of effect at best and a harmful effect at worst”, explained Stéphane Viville.

 

In addition, he states that “early embryos” tend to “have a considerable repair potential”, which, whilst not well known, would explain the fact that “even during embryo transfers with mosaic  aneuploidy syndrome[2], normal pregnancies can arise” (see « L’embryon possède une capacité remarquable pour s’auto-corriger »“The embryo possesses a remarkable capacity for self-correction). Hence “comparison of early embryos obtained by IVF is not consistent with a 3-month foetus”. Finally, failed implantation is not always due to embryo anomalies – “numerous other causes could be at fault”.

 

[1] University Professor, Hospital Practitioner (UP-HP) at the Faculty of Medicine, CHU Strasbourg (University Medical Centre), former Head of the Reproduction Biology Laboratory and former Head of Department at the first Pre-implantation Diagnostic Centre. Scientist at the Institut de génétique et de biologie moléculaire et cellulaire (IGBMC) (Institute of Genetics and Molecular and Cellular Biology), he advocates human embryo research.

[2] Embryos formed with normal and abnormal cells.

Le Monde, Stéphane Viville (15/02/2017)

PGS or Preimplantation Genetic Screening is an embryo selection technique used in in-vitro fertilisation (IVF) protocols[1]. The aim is “to eliminate embryos with chromosome abnormalities in order to implant only  ‘normal’ embryos” and improve IVF success rates. However, two studies published in June and September 2016 challenge the use of this technique.

 

Doctor Jacqueline Mandelbaum, former Head of the Biology and Reproduction Department at Tenon Hospital and former member of the CCNE[2], points out that “PGS is not tried and tested”, hence there is “no point recommending it to all women”, especially since “we have realised that natural correction undoubtedly occurs in some embryos. Anomalies could emerge and the embryo would be implanted”.

 

This technique involves carrying out a biopsy on five to ten embryo cells on the third or fifth day after in-vitro fertilisation. The sample is then analysed by a geneticist who selects the embryos for implantation. Some Spanish clinics are keen to point out that PGS “increases the percentage of pregnancy with each transfer, right from the first attempt, up to 70%”.

 

However, the latest published studies counter this claim: “An American study has not highlighted any difference in the under 37 year-olds; women over 37 must wait for several cycles for an embryo to become implanted because they have fewer eggs and are more likely to carry anomalies”. The second study published by a Stanford team “highlights the inferiority of PGS-related IVF compared to natural conception”:  ” on average, the IVF and PGS groups take 6.5 months to become pregnant, compared to three months for others”.

 

Will these studies lead to a change of practice? Doctor Mandelbaum doubts that this will be the case: “The PGS argument appeals to patients and as the cost is not negligible, the commercial interest is clearly evident”.

 

[1] PGS is used in Spain and the United States but is banned in France.

[2] French National Consulting Committee of Ethics.

Destination santé, Alejandro Jimenez (21/09/2016)

To increase in-vitro fertilisation (IVF) success rates and even “exceed that observed during natural fertilisation”, British scientists have put pressure on the HFEA[1] to authorise a test “to evaluate the ‘energy quality’ of embryos conceived by IVF”[2], which is already available on the American market.

 

A study conducted at Oxford University under the supervision of Professor Dagan Wells focused on screening 111 five-day-old human embryos produced by IVF. The team “established a correlation between the level of mitochondrial activity and the ability of the embryo to develop, once transplanted, up until birth”. Excessive activity of “central energetic” mitochondria is deemed to be synonymous with “embryo stress”, whereas a “‘calm’ embryo suggests good development”. This work was presented during the Annual Embryology Congress (ESHRE), which took place in Helsinki from 4 to 6 July.

 

Initially, scientists want to authorise this test on “the eggs of the oldest women participating in a MAP program”. They believe that “this could be carried out without any additional costs”. Jean Yves Nau is forecasting “that this process will be automated in the short term”. This will also be proposed to “fertile couples”.

 

Professor Dagan Wells went on to explain that “anything that can help in embryo selection is a good thing”, and can prevent “the emotional roller coaster” experienced by couples involved in a MAP cycle. He defends himself by “improving embryos” since his test does not repair “a poor quality embryo”.

 

Note from Gènéthique: PID (Pre-Implantation Diagnosis – an “inevitably eugenic” technique)

 

[1] Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority.

[2] Currently, the “embryos conceived in vitro are currently screened on the basis of visual or chromosomal criteria”.

 

Jean Yves Nau (5/07/2016)

On Sunday, the people of Switzerland accepted changes to the law governing Medically Assisted Procreation (see Pre-implantation Screening authorised in Switzerland). This legislation currently authorises the creation of twelve embryos for in-vitro fertilisation, pre-implantation screening of these embryos and the freezing of excess embryos for a renewable period of five years. If they are not implanted, these embryos will be “destroyed or used to produce embryo stem cells”. Finally, pre-implantation screening is authorised not only for serious hereditary diseases but also to detect chromosome abnormalities such as Down syndrome. The law does not cover the reimbursement of pre-implantation screening by medical insurance but some are already calling for this.

 

The Conference of Swiss Bishops responded following this vote: it “regrets the positive decision taken by the Swiss people” which “compromises the integral protection of human beings from conception through to natural death”. With these latest authorisations, “we are eradicating embryos which are probably carrying a disease instead of taking care of these lives”. The Bishops sought to remind “disabled people to believe in their dignity and to welcome the fact that so many people contribute to their lives”. They also repeated the fact that “recognition of the full dignity of every human being, even the most powerless, is essential for a fair society”.

 

Several politicians have also deplored the latest measures, “For the first time, human life, right from the outset, is subject to evaluation and marketing”, declared Counsellor Christine Häsler. “Many promises were made during this campaign to ensure a rigid framework and, above all, to prevent any deterioration in the situation surrounding disabled people in society. We will have to see whether these promises are met when we vote on budgets,” warned Mathias Reynard.

 

This warning is shared with the associations safeguarding the interests of the disabled: “The right of future parents not to know must be upheld at all costs. They should not be forced to undergo any examination”, stipulated Inclusion Handicap.

 

Nineteen organisations involved in the social sector and united under the slogan “diversity instead of selection” also regret the outcome of the vote on the 5 June, but “welcome the huge society debate raised by this issue”. They have announced their intention “to continue their commitment to a society without standardised constraints within which disabled people or the sick are accepted and supported like other people”.

Tribune de Genève (6/06/2016); Radio Vatican (6/06/2016); 24Heures (6/06/2016)

François Xavier Putallaz, Professor of Philosophy at Freiburg University, reviewed legislation governing the application of PGS(prenatal genetic screening), to be voted on by the Swiss nation on 5 June 2016.

As far as the Professor is concerned, “the real problem arose last year when the Swiss people accepted the constitutional article” authorising PGS.“There is no respect for embryos. The production of embryos for purposes other than IVF is actively encouraged. Authorisation has been granted to sort, select and destroy embryos”.

The initial draft bill paved the way for couples at risk of transmitting a serious hereditary disease to their children to undergo PGS. The technique has since been extended to other disorders, essentially Down syndrome. Together with the option of carrying out non-invasive prenatal screening (NIPS), both methods will certainly initiate the disappearance of babies with Down syndrome”There isn’t just “the risk of a spin-off – we are already in the spin-off”, he explained.

The reproach addressed to PGS opponents is “failure to take into account the physical and moral suffering of the parents of disabled children”.  But “the fight against suffering must not take place ‘at any cost’”, responded François Xavier Putallaz: “The aim of medicine is to fight suffering and disability – that’s what it’s all about. But we must not fight against those who are disabled or suffering (…) Real compassion involves supporting the person who is suffering, not trying to get rid him/her”. “PGS does not seek to reduce the disability but to get rid of the disabled”.

cath.ch, Raphaël Zbinden (26/05/2016)
 

A few American and Cypriot clinics offer a special service, namely “gender selection”. These clinics “mostly treat women who have no fertility problems” and offer in-vitro fertilisation and pre-implantation diagnosis. Even if “the phenomenon is still marginal”, “designer babies have become a reality”.

 

Welcoming patients from abroad, these “fertility centres” offer “IVF with selection for €5,500 excluding travelling and accommodation”, to which a further €2,000 should be added for treatments purchased on-line prior to travel. In the United States, “this is a market with an estimated annual turnover of 100 million dollars”. The doctors interviewed explained that “demand is very high”, as confirmed by consultations on the doctissimo forum, “I want to have a daughter in 2015, 2016, even 2017”.

 

Doctor Steinberg, “a major gender selection specialist in the United States”, also explained that he “started to sort babies according to eye colour – blue, obviously”. He pointed out that, “Eye colour is a big market – demand increases really quickly. People want things for their babies that they could not have themselves”.

Le Temps, Julie Conti (17/05/2016)

A study published in the Nature journal and directed by Professor Magdalena Zernicka-Goetz shows that “the presence of abnormal cells in premature embryos does not necessarily indicate a deficiency in the unborn baby”. This research has been carried out in mice and it remains to be seen whether the same mechanisms exist in man.

 

Professor Magadalena Zernicka-Goetz decided to carry out this research when doctors told her that “a quarter of the cells in the embryo she was carrying presented with abnormalities”. Following IVF, abnormal cells are detected “in 80 to 90% of premature human embryos,” but to date, “little is known about the fate of these abnormal cells during embryo development”. Professor Zernicka-Goetz “eventually gave birth to a perfectly healthy baby son”.

 

Following her study, the Professor confirmed that “embryos have a remarkable ability to correct themselves”. The abnormal cells are “eliminated and replaced by healthy cells”. Thus, “this would mean that even if the first indications suggest that the child could have a genetic deficiency because of the large number (…) of abnormal cells in the embryo, this is not necessarily the case”.

Le quotidien du médecin (29/03/2016)
 

A report by Liberation in Pakistan has highlighted pre-implantation screening spin-offs in the gender selection market, “designer babies have become a lucrative business for several clinics”.

 

 These private clinics operate openly, using slogans such as “do you want a boy or girl?  – it’s up to you” or “choose your baby’s gender before getting pregnant: pre-implantation screening for balanced families!” Offering pre-implantation screening at a cost of €3,500 to €7,000€, the clinics “are attracting more and more couples” in a society that prefers boys.

 

Thus embryologist Nighat Mahmood from the Life Clinic, notes that since 2009, “not one couple has used this approach to have a girl”. He chillingly reported that “female embryos are thrown in the rubbish bin” and relished the fact that, in six years, “the number of pre-implantation screening procedures has exploded” in his clinic. “When we started out, we were dealing with the more affluent. But now patients come from all walks of life if they manage to raise the money”.

 

In this country, “the 23 clinics practising this technique are not bound by legislation”. The “odd few” specialists tend to resist, refusing to “create designer babies”. However, as Nasim Ashraf, Director of one clinic in Islamabad explained, “the door is not completely closed, still haunted by the suicide of one of its patients pressurised by her family”. Others explain that, “you have to have a heart of stone to refuse the procedure for desperate couples” or we are not “fans of this procedure in an ideal Pakistan, but we are helping to save marriages and protect wives”. This reasoning does not convince scientist Pervez Hoodboy, “who emphasises the ‘false morality’ and ‘excuses’ put forward by these clinics ‘in order to make money’”.

Libération (05/11/2015)

In June 2015, with 62%, the Swiss nation voted in favour of pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD ) (See Gènéthique 15.06.2015) et Gènéthique informs you 09.06.2015). The Swiss Evangelical Party, which spearheads the interparty committee opposing pre-implantation genetic diagnosis, was granted sufficient time to gather the 50,000 signatures needed for a national referendum on PGD legislation.  The deadline is set for 10 December 2015.

 

PGD legislation proposed within the framework of MAP (medically assisted procreation), as drafted since the June vote, authorises screening for Down syndrome although this is not “considered to be a hereditary disease” and other chromosomal anomalies.  Furthermore, the number of embryos “produced” per treatment cycle increases from three to twelve whereas the ban on the preservation of embryos has been lifted.  Excess embryos can be frozen and stored for ten years.

Tribune de Genève (01/09/2015)

Yesterday, the Swiss voted in favour of pre-implantation diagnosis.  62% accepted the general amendment to the Constitution which creates a framework authorising doctors to practise PGD. However, only 43% of voters participated.

 

This vote “is, however, only a precursor”. The law, on which Parliament has already voted, will be subject to a referendum. 

 

This law “paves the way for PGD to be accessible not only to couples who know they are carriers of a serious hereditary disease but also to those who resort to in-vitro fertilisation solely because they cannot have children any other way”.

 

Down Syndrome is indicated in PGD although it is not “considered a hereditary disease”.

 

This referendum is desired by the interparty committee, created to oppose PGD, as well as by bishops, the Federation of Protestant Churches and Associations for the Disabled. “Only a referendum can still close the door to the selection of human beings,” announced the interparty committee.

 

Le Temps (14/06/2015) ; 20minutes (14/06/2015)

Switzerland should announce its position regarding Pre-implantation Genetic Diagnosis on 14 June.  An inter-party committee has been formed, refusing to accept that Switzerland should “open its doors to eugenics”.

 

The Catholic bishops and the Federation of Protestant Churches have also spoken out against PGD.

 

In turn, 17 disabled persons’ organisations have come together to protest against lifting the ban on pre-implantation genetic diagnosis: “If the yes votes dominate the polls this Sunday, they are all ready to support a potential referendum against the new law”.

 

However, these 17 organisations are not all firmly opposed to PGD and opinions are conflicting.  Some agree with the practice, ‘provided that it is accessible to couples with a serious hereditary disease only’ whilst others approve the omission of the restriction on the number of embryos created by IVF but oppose “screening” of the human genome.

 

These organisations are all afraid of “marginalising people living with an anomaly” and “those who initially welcomed PGD eventually backed off when parliament decided to extend access to PGD to all couples with recourse to IVF, especially for Down Syndrome screening”. Urs Dettling pointed out that “Down Syndrome is a chromosomal mutation.  It is not a serious or fatal hereditary disease warranting upstream screening”.

 

Julien Jäckle, Director of Integration Handicap exposed the difficulties faced by parents of disabled children: “We are living in a society where performance counts more and more.  We must do everything we can to continue to help the most vulnerable both legally and morally”.

 

Carine Skupien, the mother of a severely disabled daughter confirmed this analysis and said that, “if they (disabled people) are not helped by institutions and organisations, parents may flounder given the enormity of the task”. She also warned against the practice of PGD which “poses the real risk that disabled people may be perceived as laboratory waste that has not been disposed of successfully”.

 

Le Temps (09/06/2015)

Scientists at UZ Leuven have developed a test to detect congenital genetic diseases in embryos produced by in-vitro fertilisation (IVF), the results of which are obtained faster than with conventional PGD.

 

This new test “quickly detects genetic anomalies including more complex disorders which conventional tests are incapable of detecting”, and “screens for chromosomal abnormalities such as Down syndrome”. Scientists advocate the reliability of the test and the shorter waiting time for results.

 

Louvain University Hospital has been using this test since January.  It was also awarded “the prize for the most promising research project during the last annual congress held by the American Human Genetics Society”.

Le Vif (29/05/2015)

Following in the steps of the country’s bishops, the Fédération des Eglises Protestantes de Suisse (FEPS) (Federation of Protestant Churches of Switzerland) expressed its opposition to a change in the Federal Constitution that would authorise pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD).

 

“Human life should not be subjected to quality control checks”, emphasised FEPS, pointing out that “genetic embryo selection touches on an extremely sensitive area, namely eugenics, i.e. the artificial selection of human beings”.

 

This possible amendment to the Constitution proposed by Parliament will be put to the Swiss people on 14 June 2015.

Bonne nouvelle 12/05/2015

On 14 June, the Swiss people will be invited to vote for or against an amendment in the Federal Constitution proposed by Parliament and “destined to pave the way for pre-implantation diagnosis”.

 

The Swiss bishops took their stand yesterday in an announcement entitled,“No to pre-implantation diagnosis and yes to human beings”. They pleaded to the people of Switzerland “to vote no”to“show that the human dignity of all human beings must be respected and safeguarded to the hilt”.

 

The bishops pointed out that “with PGD, a disease is not being treated.  It is being prevented by removing the carrier of the disease”. Qualifying this method as “unjustifiable”, they stressed that it came down to “liberal eugenics”reminding people that, in fact, PGD “requires voluntary embryo production in order to make a selection”. Authorising PGD would therefore be tantamount to granting “the right to decide who deserves to live and who does not”.

 

The bishops believe that “maximum protection for a human embryo, which must be considered a person, is best ensured by the current Federal Constitution”, which stipulates that “only the number of human embryos for immediate implantation can be developed outside the female body”.

Other voices were heard on this topic. Bertrand Kiefer, doctor, Director of Editions Médecine et Hygiène, chief editor of the Revue médicale suisse and in favour of PGD, raised the following question: “If we remove all of the individuals affected by genetic risk factors, we do not know what the consequences will be in terms of human diversity.  This diversity adds to the richness of our destiny.  The role of medicine is not to standardise human beings but to make them free”.

Zenit 11/05/2015 – Le Temps (Denis Masmejan) 12/05/2015