Dr. Tur-Kaspa featured on "The New York Times" on Genetic Testing

Ethics Questions Arise as Genetic Testing of Embryos Increases

The New York Times Online / Gina Kolata / Feb. 3, 2014

Amanda and Bradley Kalinsky with their children, who were born after embryos for in vitro fertilization were found to be free of the gene for the deadly disease that Ms. Kalinsky carries.  Photo Credit: Nathan Morgan for The New York Times

Amanda and Bradley Kalinsky with their children, who were born after embryos for in vitro fertilization were found to be free of the gene for the deadly disease that Ms. Kalinsky carries.

Photo Credit: Nathan Morgan for The New York Times

“… Preimplantation diagnosis often goes unmentioned by doctors. In a recent national survey, Dr. Robert Klitzman, a professor of clinical psychiatry and bioethicist at Columbia University, found that most internists were unsure about whether they would suggest the method to couples with genes for diseases like cystic fibrosis or breast cancer. Only about 6 percent had ever mentioned it to patients and only 7 percent said they felt qualified to answer patients’ questions about it.

“In the medical community, the lack of knowledge about P.G.D. is a serious concern,” said Dr. P. Murali Doraiswamy, a dementia researcher at Duke University Medical Center and an author of the new paper, referring to preimplantation genetic diagnosis. In his area — brain disorders — he adds, there are no guidelines about using the method, even though there are hundreds of inherited neurological conditions. Ms. Kalinsky, a nurse, and her husband, a doctor, only learned about the testing from a genetic counselor.

Ethicists are divided about use of the method.

Janet Malek, a bioethicist at the Brody School of Medicine at East Carolina University, said that people who carry a gene like GSS have a moral duty to use preimplantation diagnosis — if they can afford it — to spare the next generation.

But David Wasserman, an ethicist at Yeshiva University and consultant to the department of bioethics at the National Institutes of Health, says there is no obligation to use it for diseases that do not start until adulthood. Eliminating embryos with such genes is essentially saying someone like Ms. Kalinsky should never have been born, he said.

And discarding embryos that carry gene mutations that increase the risk for disease — for example, breast cancer — is problematic, he said.

“To someone who says, ‘I can’t deal with a risk of breast cancer,’ I would say: ‘Look, there are all kinds of risks. You and your children are going to be hostage to fortune and no amount of testing is going to change that,’ ” Mr. Wasserman said.

Dr. Klitzman calls diseases like breast cancer the “gray areas.” And, he said, “with the exploding use of the technology, we are increasingly confronting gray areas.”

Patients can avoid all testing and hope for the best, playing what Dr. Ilan Tur-Kaspa, the founder and director of the Institute for Human Reproduction, calls “reproductive roulette.” Or, he said, they can conceive on their own and have the fetus tested. If the gene is present, they face the difficult choice of whether to abort the pregnancy. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis provides another option.

Dr. Tur-Kaspa said that after having done the procedure a thousand times, he cannot think of a gene he would not test for if a patient requested it…”

read full article here