Fertility clinics have always known that genetic damage builds up in the eggs of older women, and is carried through to their embryos, but eggs from younger women were assumed to be healthy and defect-free. The finding suggests that on average, 42% of eggs from all women have serious genetic defects that could prevent embryos being carried to term.
"This is a rewriting of the textbooks. These defects should not be present in such a high proportion of patients," said Peter Nagy, a fertility expert at the Atlanta-based clinic Reproductive Biology Associates.
And even higher for couples who are infertile (and isn't that the largest group of IVF clients?).
A third study, by Dr Nagy's group, looked at the extent of genetic defects in embryos created for young couples undergoing fertility treatment. He found that they were even more likely to have genetic defects than embryos created from healthy donors. Nearly two-thirds of the embryos created for women younger than 35 had chromosomal abnormalities, a figure that rose to nearly three-quarters for the over-38s.
Solution: screen them for defects first.
A tiny percentage of embryos created in British fertility clinics are already screened for genetic defects, but the procedure is not available on the NHS, costs around £2,500 a time, and is offered by only eight clinics. According to Human Fertilisatio and Embryology Authority guidelines, only embryos from older women with a high risk of having a child with a genetic condition such as cystic fibrosis, and women with a history of recurrent miscarriages or IVF failure are tested using PGD. Dr. Nelson argued that the HFEA guidelines should be relaxed to allow more embryos to be tested. "I think there's an argument that can be made to say they should be more lenient," he said.
"Screen." By which is meant first create them, then kill them off if they are genetically defective. But my no means question the morality of creating lives in test tubes only to kill off 40-66% of them. And by no means ask yourself the question:Whether it is much of a stretch --when an entire generation is taught that an unborn child is a commodity to which one is entitled, or entitled to do away with, entirely on one's whim-- when young people understand that they exist because their moms were in the mood to have them and not because they have any inherent value or dignity as persons-- whether it is much of a stretch for that generation to apply the same principle to all life: babies, children, teens, adults -- yours? This is not the way to create a society in which women and children can walk unmolested down the street.
