Adam Nash was born on August 29th of this year. His 14 siblings were not so fortunate. They just didn’t have what their parents were looking for.
The Nash case is our first foray into a brave new world that should trouble anyone concerned about human life and the murky, uncharted waters into which recent advancements in reproductive science are leading us.
Lisa and Jack Nash of Colorado already had a six year-old child. The girl, Molly, suffers from a rare genetic blood disorder that weakens the immune system and usually causes Leukemia. Anyone can understand the anguish of parents enduring such hardship. Unwilling to stand idly by, most parents would go to any effort to save their child. But Lisa and Jack Nash may have gone too far.
Both parents were leery about having more children since they had a 25 percent chance of producing another child with the same fatal blood disorder. Then, science offered the Nashes another way: in-vitro fertilization.
In a petri dish, doctors harvested 15 new members of the Nash family. While all 15 human embryos awaited implantation in the womb and the continuation of their little lives, the Nash’s were looking for a perfect match. To see who would be permitted into the mother’s womb, each was subjected to a technique known as “pre-implantation genetic diagnosis.” The embryos were prodded, poked, and scanned by doctors. Life would only be granted to the one Nash who hit the genetic lottery. All others would be expelled from the game — permanently.
The new Nash baby was to have two characteristics: first, he or she was to be free of the blood disorder plaguing Molly; and second, he or she would share Molly’s blood type. The new Nash child was coming into the world not because the Nash’s necessarily wanted another child, but because the family needed a blood donor.
After an arduous search, the doctors found their man. A male child, Adam would be implanted in Lisa’s womb. Following his birth this past August, blood from Adam’s umbilical chord was transplanted into his six-year-old sister. Doctors are not sure if the transplant will save to girl’s life, but they are hopeful. And to think, this hope only cost 14 little lives.
The ethical and moral questions raised by the Nash case are legion. Those in the genetic research community say this heralds a new era of parental choice. Once the technology is perfected, they say parents will be able to screen out birth defects, disease, and illness. Eye color, hair color, height, weight, intelligence — every trait will be an option. Your child can be customized to your liking.
Fascinating stuff to be sure — until you stop and consider the preconditions and ramifications of such “choice.” Any parent can have this “choice” so long as he/she is willing to play God and dispense with a few lives. Death is the price of admission. The process requires the taking of your children’s innocent human life.
In a way, this is all like a murderous Dating Game. The object of the game is to find the perfect person. Your chances naturally increase if you have a larger pool of bachelorettes from which to choose. Similarly, doctors demand a battalion of embryonic contestants for their work. Next, you get to ask each bachlorette several questions to determine if she has the qualities you are seeking in a mate. The doctors screen their candidates for just the right gene makeup. Once the questioning is over you make your choice and take bachlorette number three to a beach resort. The doctor’s winning contestant gets to go on an all-expense-paid trip to mom’s womb. Unfortunately, everybody else dies.
Suddenly the “choice” doesn’t sound so great anymore. Where’s the “choice” for the embryos not chosen? Those not killed outright are usually frozen and used later for stem cell research. If you did that to the losing bachelorettes, they’d send you to a federal penitentiary.
The Nash case also uses a good (the saving of a life) to justify a wrong (the discarding of human life). It presupposes that some lives are worth more than others. It is curious that little six year-old Molly Nash is more important and valued than her embryonic sisters and brothers simply because she is outside the womb — because she can walk and talk. Were she to lose those abilities one wonders if some would consider her life less precious. And though no one would suggest that Molly’s life should be sacrificed to save the lives of her siblings, the Nashes have no problem asserting the reverse.
The problem with this entire case is: Adam Nash was allowed to live not by virtue of his inherent human rights, but only for his utility. “Utility” seems to be the new standard for human life and dignity in the 21st Century. The troubling question for all of us remains: who will decide which lives have use and which do not? Doctors? Parents? Politicians? Be careful whom you ask — the answers are bound to be different, and your life could depend on that response. Just ask the Nash family.
