Page 355 [355]
OCR
LEGAL THINKING ABOUT OUR EDITED SELF Oviedo Convention, which bans sex selection: "Ihe use of technigues of medically assisted procreation shall not be allowed for the purpose of choosing a future child’s sex, except where serious hereditary sex-related disease is to be avoided.” The other normative anchor is to examine the purpose that such an intervention could serve. Although it is difficult to establish it legally, it is important to define the difference between a disease to be cured and an anomaly. Who decides about what is considered a disease or an anomaly, and which diseases are worth correcting, treating and improving? Enhancement and performance enhancing have become accepted in many fields; it is enough to think about the improvement of vision through eye surgery, or the numerous — legal and illegal — means of performance improvement in sport. Julian Savulescu and his colleagues believe that most of the leading athletes are born with a genetic advantage; consequently, they claim that genetically enhancing athletic performance is completely legitimate, as elite and competitive sport above a certain level is all about competition between genetic advantages anyway.” Obviously, diligence and a lot of training are essential but, according to Savulescu, in this case, genetic intervention in order to enhance performance can be justified. THERAPY OR ENHANCEMENT? During the application of new procedures, one of the most controversial topics is how to set the boundaries between therapy and enhancement. Russian biologist Denis Rebrikov, for example, offered his help in gene editing to allow deaf couples to give birth to children without a genetic mutation that impairs hearing. Rebrikov emphasized that he will implant gene-edited embryos only if he receives regulatory approval. The community with hearing disability, nevertheless, may regard this offer as an indication that their identity needs to be gene-edited. For them gene editing may be regarded not as a desirable therapy but rather a form of intervention that emphasizes their disability. On the other hand, those who advocate for enhancement of different capabilities in sport and other fields of life may welcome gene editing as a form of enhancement. According to a survey on gene editing, conducted by the Pew Research Center in 2018, 54% of respondents thought that people will use gene editing in morally unacceptable ways. Furthermore, about seven-in-ten Americans (72%) were on the opinion that changing an unborn baby’s genetic characteristics to treat a serious disease or condition that the baby would have at birth is an appropriate 2 Francoise Baylis, Altered Inheritance, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 2019, 58. * 353 ¢
