Transferring embryos with genetic anomalies detected in preimplantation testing: an Ethics Committee Opinion

      Patient requests for transfer of embryos with genetic anomalies linked to serious health-affecting disorders detected in preimplantation testing are rare but do exist. This Opinion sets out the possible rationales for a provider's decision to assist or decline to assist in such transfers. The Committee concludes in most clinical cases it is ethically permissible to assist or decline to assist in transferring such embryos. In circumstances in which a child is highly likely to be born with a life-threatening condition that causes severe and early debility with no possibility of reasonable function, provider transfer of such embryos is ethically problematic and highly discouraged.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment


      1. Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. PGD conditions licensed by the HFEA. Available at: Accessed January 20, 2017.

        • Wells D.
        • Kaur K.
        • Glassner M.
        • Grifo J.
        • Fragouli E.
        • Munne S.
        Whole–genome sequencing technology for the assessment of embryo genetics and viability.
        Fertil Steril. 2013; 100: S132-S133
        • Deleye L.
        • Dheedene A.
        • De Coninck D.
        • Sante T.
        • Christodoulou C.
        • Heindryckx B.
        • et al.
        Shallow whole genome sequencing is well suited for the detection of chromosomal aberrations in human blastocysts.
        Fertil Steril. 2015; 104: 1276-1285
        • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
        2012 assisted reproductive technology national summary report.
        2014 (Available at:) (Accessed January 20, 2017)
        • Ginsburg E.S.
        • Baker V.L.
        • Racowsky C.
        • Wantman E.
        • Goldfarb J.
        • Stern J.E.
        Use of preimplantation genetic diagnosis and preimplantation genetic screening in the United States: a Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology Writing Group paper.
        Fertil Steril. 2011; 96: 865-868
      2. Sanghavi DM. Wanting babies like themselves, some parents choose genetic defects. NY Times 2006;F5 2006.

      3. Cohen IG. Intentional diminishment, the non–identity problem, and legal liability. Hastings L J 2008–09;60:347–75.

        • Baruch S.
        • Kaufman D.
        • Hudson K.L.
        Genetic testing of embryos: practices and perspectives of US in vitro fertilization clinics.
        Fertil Steril. 2008; 89: 1053-1058
        • Center for Human Reproduction
        Transferring supposedly chromosomally “abnormal” embryos in an IVF cycle.
        2014 (Available at:) (Accessed January 20, 2017)
      4. Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. Embryo testing and sex selection. Available at: Accessed June 17, 2015.

        • Wilton L.
        • Thornhill A.
        • Traeger–Synodinos J.
        • Sermon K.D.
        • Harper J.C.
        The causes of misdiagnosis and adverse outcomes in PGD.
        Hum Reprod. 2008; 24: 1221-1228
        • Greco E.
        • Minasi M.G.
        Healthy babies after intrauterine transfer of mosaic aneuploidy blastocysts.
        New Eng J Med. 2015; 373: 2089-2090
        • Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine
        Use of reproductive technology for sex selection for nonmedical reasons.
        Fertil Steril. 2015; 103: 1418-1422
        • National Council on Disabilities
        Rocking the cradle: ensuring the rights of parents with disabilities and their children.
        2012 (Available at:) (Accessed January 20, 2017)
        • Lombardo P.A.
        Three generations: No imbeciles.
        Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD2008
      5. York v. Jones, 717 F. Supp. 421 (E.D. Va. 1989).

      6. American Medical Association, Principles of Medical Ethics IX (adopted June 1957, revised 1980, 2001). Available at: Accessed January 20, 2017.

        • Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine
        Fertility treatment when the prognosis is very poor or futile: a committee opinion.
        Fertil Steril. 2012; 98: e6-e9
        • Kolthoff M.
        Assisted reproduction and primum non nocere.
        Virtual Mentor. 2007; 9: 605-610
        • Beauchamp T.
        • Childress J.
        Principles of Biomedical Ethics.
        5th ed. Oxford University Press, New York, NY2001: 112-115
        • Savulescu J.
        Procreative beneficence: why we should select the best children.
        Bioethics. 2001; 15: 413-426
        • Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine
        Child–rearing ability and the provision of fertility services.
        Fertil Steril. 2013; 100: 50-53
      7. Smolensky KR. Creating children with disabilities: parental tort liability for preimplantation genetic intervention. Hastings L.J. 2008;60:299–346.

        • Appel J.M.
        Genetic screening and child abuse: can PGS rise to the level of criminality? U.M.K.C. L.
        Rev. 2011; 80: 373-398