Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Public Perceptions of Ethical, Legal and Social Implications of Pre-implantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD) in Malaysia

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Science and Engineering Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) became well known in Malaysia after the birth of the first Malaysian ‘designer baby’, Yau Tak in 2004. Two years later, the Malaysian Medical Council implemented the first and only regulation on the use of Pre-implantation Genetic Diagnosis in this country. The birth of Yau Tak triggered a public outcry because PGD was used for non-medical sex selection thus, raising concerns about PGD and its implications for the society. This study aims to explore participants’ perceptions of the future implications of PGD for the Malaysian society. We conducted in-depth interviews with 21 participants over a period of one year, using a semi-structured questionnaire. Findings reveal that responses varied substantially among the participants; there was a broad acceptance as well as rejection of PGD. Contentious ethical, legal and social issues of PGD were raised during the discussions, including intolerance to and discrimination against people with genetic disabilities; societal pressure and the ‘slippery slope’ of PGD were raised during the discussions. This study also highlights participants’ legal standpoint, and major issues regarding PGD in relation to the accuracy of diagnosis. At the social policy level, considerations are given to access as well as the impact of this technology on families, women and physicians. Given these different perceptions of the use of PGD, and its implications and conflicts, policies and regulations of the use of PGD have to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis while taking into consideration of the risk–benefit balance, since its application will impact the lives of so many people in the society.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Agar, N. (2006). Designer babies: Ethical considerations. Action bioscience. http://www.planet-earth2.com/resources/Actionbioscience%20%7C%20Designer%20Babies%3A%20Ethical%20Considerations.pdf. Accessed 26 Sept 2015.

  • Annas, G. (2001). Turning point for human species: Trial lawyer should prepare for the brave new world of genetic research and human cloning. TRIAL, 29, 27–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aronson, J. (1994). A pragmatic view of thematic analysis. The Qualitative Report, 2(1), 1–3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ata, B., & Seli, E. (2010). Economics of assisted reproductive technologies. Current Opinions in Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 22(3), 183–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baruch, S. (2009). PGD and parental preferences: Beyond deadly disease. Houston Journal of Health Law and Policy, 2(14), 245–270.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyle, R. J., & Savulescu, J. (2001). Ethics of using pre-implantation genetic diagnosis to select a stem cell donor for an existing person. British Medical Journal, 323(7323), 1240–1243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brezina, P. R., & Zhao, Y. (2012). The ethical, legal and social issues impacted by modern assisted reproductive technologies. Obstetrics and Gynaecology International, 2012, 1–7. doi:10.1155/2012/686253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Childress, K. D. (2003). Genetic, disability and ethics: Could applied technologies lead to a new eugenics. The Journal of Women and Religion, 19(20), 157–178.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chok, S. L. (2006). Designer babies and the dilemmas thereof, New Sunday Times, 25, p. 20.

  • Clancy, T. A. (2010). Clinical perspectives on ethical arguments around prenatal diagnosis and pre-implantation genetic diagnosis for late onset inherited cancer predispositions. Familial Cancer, 9(1), 9–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cole-Turner, R. (2003). Religious meets research. In B. Waters & R. Cole-Turner (Eds.), God and the embryo: Religious voices on stem cells and cloning (pp. 7–18). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, J. (2002). An international survey of health economics of IVF and ICSI. Human Reproduction Update, 8(3), 265–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crabtree, B. F., & Miller, W. L. (1992). Doings qualitative research. Research methods for primary care, 3. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • De-Wert, G., Dondrop, W., Shenfield, S., et al. (2014). ESHRE task force on ethics and law 22. Pre-implantation genetic diagnosis. Human Reproduction, 29, 1–8. doi:10.1093/humrep/deu132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drazba, K. T., Kelley, M. A., & Hershberger, P. E. (2014). A qualitative inquiry of the financial concerns of couples opting to use pre-implantation genetic diagnosis to prevent the transmission of known genetic disorders. Journal of genetic Counselling, 23, 202–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dresser, R. (2006). Pre-implantation genetic diagnosis as innovation: reflections from The President’s Council of Bioethics. Fertility and Sterility, 85(6), 1633–1637.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, S. D. (2004). Disability, identity and the ‘expressivity objection’. Journal of Medical Ethics, 30(4), 418–420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ehrich, K., Williams, C., Scott, R., Farsides, B., & Sandall, J. (2007). Choosing embryos: Ethical complexity and relational autonomy in staff accounts of PGD. Social Health Illness, 29(7), 1091–1106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ehrich, K., Williams, C., Scott, R., Sandall, J., & Farsides, B. (2006). Social welfare, genetic welfare? Boundary-work in the IVF/PGD clinid. Social Science and Medicine, 63(5), 1213–1224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fasouliotis, S. J., & Schenker, J. G. (1998). Pre-implantation genetic diagnosis principles and ethics. Human Reproduction, 13(8), 2238–2245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Han, J. (2006). Pre-implantation genetic diagnosis: The future of eugenics, ETHOS. http://www.bc.edu/clubs/mendel/ethos/archives/2006/han.shtml.

  • Handyside, A. H., Lesko, J. G., Tarin, J. J., Winston, R., & Hughes, M. R. (1992). Birth of a normal girl after in vitro fertilization and pre-implantation diagnostic testing for cystic fibrosis. New England Journal of Medicine, 327(13), 905–909.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harper, J. C., Geraedts, J. M., Braude, P., et al. (2001). Pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD), A collaborative activity of clinical genetic departments and IVF centres. Prenatal Diagnosis, 21(12), 1086–1092.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harper, J. C., Sengupta, S., Vesela, K., Thornhill, A., Dequeker, E., Connen, E., et al. (2010). Accreditation of the PGD laboratory. Human Reproduction, 25(4), 1051–1065.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harton, G. L., Magli, M. C., Lundin, K., Montag, M., Lemmen, J., & Harper, J. C. (2011). ESHRE PGD Consortium/Embryology Special Interest Group-best practice guidelines for polar body and embryo biopsy for pre-implantation genetic diagnosis/screening (PGD/PGS). Human Reproduction, 26(1), 41–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hermann, S. L. (2009). Policy debates on reprogenetics The problematization of new research in Great Britian and Germany (p. 99). Frankfurt a.M: Campus.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hershberger, P. E., & Pierce, P. F. (2010). Conceptualizing couples’ decision making in PGD: Emerging cognitive, emotional and moral dimension. Patient Education and Counselling, 81, 53–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hudson, K. (2006). Pre-implantation genetic diagnosis: Public policy and public attitudes. Fertility and Sterility, 85(6), 1638–1645.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kalfoglou, A. L., Scott, J., & Hudson, K. (2005). PGD patients’ and providers’ attitudes to the use and regulation of pre-implantation genetic diagnosis. Reproductive Biomedicine Online, 11(4), 486–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kerr, A. (2004). Genetic and society: A sociology of disease. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, A. (2013). The designer baby technology: Does PGD cause discrimination against the disabled. http://www.thebioethicsproject.org/essays/the-designer-baby-technology-does-preimplantation-genetic-diagnosis-cause-discrimination-against-the-disabled/. Accessed 9 Apr 2015.

  • King, D. S. (1999). Pre-implantation genetic diagnosis and the ‘new’ eugenics. Journal of Medical Ethics, 25, 176–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malek, J. (2010). Deciding against disability: Does the use of reproductive genetic technologies express disvalue for people with disabilities. Journal of Medical Ethics, 36, 217–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, J. R., Bromer, J. G., Sakkas, D., & Patrizio, P. (2011). Insurance coverage and in vitro fertilization outcome. A US perspectives. Fertility and Sterility, 95(3), 964–969.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McMahan, J. (2005). The morality of screening for disability. Reproductive BioMedicine Online, 10(1), 129–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meister, U., Finck, C., Stobel-Richter, Y., Schmutzer, G., & Brahler, E. (2005). Knowledge and attitudes towards preimplantation genetic diagnosis in Germany. Human Reproduction, 20(1), 231–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Natipodi, P. (2013). The practise of sex selection in Asian region. ASLI Working paper series No. 034, 3-9

  • Pardo, R., & Calvo, F. (2008). Attitudes toward embryo research, worldview and the moral status of the embryo frame. Science Communication, 30(1), 8–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petersen, T. S. (2005). Just diagnosis? PGD and injustice to disabled people. Journal of Medical Ethics, 31, 231–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • President’s Council on Bioethics. (2004). Reproduction and responsibility. Report on new biotechnologies. Report of the President’s Council on Bioethics, Washington, DC, pp. 96–97.

  • Puri, S., Adams, V., Ivey, S., et al. (2011). “There is such a thing as too many daughter, but not too many sons”: A qualitative study of son preference and fetal sex selection among Indian immigrants in the United States. Social Science and Medicine, 72(7), 1169–1176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raspberry, K., & Skinner, D. (2011). Enacting genetic responsibility: Experiences of mothers who carry the fragile X-gene. Social Health Illness, 33(3), 420–433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, J. C. (2002). Customizing conception: A survey of pre-implantation genetic diagnosis and the resulting social, ethical and legal dilemmas. Duke Law Technology Review, (Jul 23), E1.

  • Rogers, W. A. (2001). Whose autonomy? Which choice? A study of GO’s attitudes towards patient autonomy in the management of low back pain. Oxford Medical Journal, 19(2), 140–145.

    Google Scholar 

  • Savulescu, J., & Kahane, G. (2009). The moral obligation to create children with the best chance of the best life. Bioethics, 23(5), 274–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sermon, K. (2002). Current concepts in pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD): A molecular biologist’s view. Human Reproduction Update, 8(1), 11–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shenker, J. G. (2011). Ethical dilemmas in assisted reproductive technologies (p. 175). Gottingen: Hubert & Co, GmBH & Co.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Shotelersuk, V., Limwongse, C., & Mahasirimongkol, S. (2014). Genetics and genomics in Thailand. Challenges and opportunities. Molecular Genetics and Genomics Medicine, 2(3), 210–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spriggs, M., & Savulescu, J. (2002). Savior siblings. Journal of Medical Ethics, 28, 289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stern, H. J. (2014). Pre-implantation genetic diagnosis: Prenatal testing for embryos finally achieving its potential. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 3(1), 280–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thornhill, A. R., deDie-Smulders, C. E., Geraedts, J. P., et al. (2005). ESHRE PGD Consortium ‘Best practise guidelines for clinical pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) and pre-implantation genetic screening (PGS). Human Reproduction, 20(1), 35–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tur-Kaspa, I., Aljadeff, G., Rechitsky, S., Grotjan, H. E., & Verlinsky, Y. (2010). PGD for all cystic fibrosis carrier couples: Novel strategy for preventive medicine and cost analysis. Reproductive BioMedicine Online, 21, 186–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turriziani, J. V. (2014). Designer babies: The need for regulation on the quest for perfection, Law School Student Scholarship. http://scholarship.shu.edu/student_scholarship. Accessed 25 Sept 2015.

  • Van Rij, M. C., Gielen, M., Lulofs, R., et al. (2011). Profiles and motives for PGD: A prospective cohort study of couples referred for PGD in the Netherland. Human Reproduction, 26(7), 1826–1835.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whittaker, A. M. (2011). Reproduction opportunists in the new global sex trade. PGD and non-medical sex selection. Reproductive BioMedicine Online, 23, 609–617.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilton, L. (2002). Pre-implantation genetic diagnosis for aneuploidy screening in early human embryo: A review. Prenatal Diagnosis, 22(6), 512–518.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yu, Y., Wu, J., Fan, Y., et al. (2009). Evaluation of blastomere biopsy using a mouse model indicates the potential high risk of neurodegenerative disorders in the offspring. Molecular and Cellular Proteomics, 8(7), 1490–1500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Financial support from the Postgraduate grant from University Malaya, Malaysia [IPPP/UPGP/GRANT(PPP)/PS385/2010] and publication grant from Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia [DPP-2015-086] are acknowledge.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Pusat Citra UKM, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, 43600, Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia

    Angelina P. Olesen & Latifah Amin

  2. Faculty of Science (Department of Science and Technology), University of Malaya, 50460, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

    Siti Nurani Mohd Nor

  3. Faculty of Law, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, 43600, Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia

    Anisah Che Ngah

Authors
  1. Angelina P. Olesen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Siti Nurani Mohd Nor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Latifah Amin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Anisah Che Ngah
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Angelina P. Olesen.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors hereby declare that they all have no competing interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Olesen, A.P., Mohd Nor, S.N., Amin, L. et al. Public Perceptions of Ethical, Legal and Social Implications of Pre-implantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD) in Malaysia. Sci Eng Ethics 23, 1563–1580 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-016-9857-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-016-9857-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation