Impact of Germ Line Manipulation On Following Generations

Yet another realm of the bioethics debate is question of fairness to children born of germline modification. For the uninitiated, germline refers to genetic modifications that will be passed on to succeeding generations. At issue here is the fact that if genetic modifications are made that are passed down to succeeding generations, those generations will not have had any choice in those modifications. This argument is rooted somewhat in the individualistic approach to these questions. The argument honors the rights of the child as an individual to self-determination.

It occurs to me that this question could be framed another way. Let us compare a child of germline genetic modification to one of completely natural descent. Both of these children could lodge complaints against the preceeding generations for choices they made that affected the child, perhaps in a negative way. The genetically modified child might complain of a modification that perhaps had an unintended consequence that hadn't been considered prior to his birth. But the "natural" child could make a complaint about his genetics as well. As a child short in stature, he could lodge a complaint against his grandfather for marrying and having children with a woman of extremely short stature. In short, the genetic choices we make, either natural or technological in nature, affect our children.

Stock makes an argument on this issue that is quite persuasive. He claims that every time someone is kept alive by medical intervention who would have otherwise died, we have impacted the gene pool, thus affecting the genetic makeup of some future generations (assuming the saved life is of a fertile person who goes on to have child(ren)). He makes this point to show that we aren't "playing God" when we perform germline genetic modification any more than we are when performing accepted medical procedures.