Designer Babies With a Twist

In the movie Gattaca, the main character, Vincent, is an oddity in a futuristic society steeped in genetic engineering. Vincent is different because he was conceived the old fashioned way and his parents refused to take the normal steps to deal with potential health consequences. As a result, Vincent is born with numerous deficiencies (poor eyesight, bad heart, etc.) that would prevent him from leading the life he dreamed of - in theory, at least (that's the point of the movie - and his does manage to sang Uma Thurmond, so he's not completely gimpy).

Vincent's parents chose not to use the tools available to them to avoid genetic defects. But what about the reverse - using those tools to ensure the presence of defects? That's the theory behind this column in today's New York Times science section:

In other words, some parents had the painful and expensive fertility procedure for the express purpose of having children with a defective gene. It turns out that some mothers and fathers don’t view certain genetic conditions as disabilities but as a way to enter into a rich, shared culture.

The "defects" discussed in the story are deafness and dwarfism. While those conditions present barriers to living a "normal" life, they aren't life threatening. But would the position that the parents discussed in the column have the right to choose deafness or dwarfism necessarily mean that other parents could choose more debilitating defects? What duty does a potential parent have to ensure that his/her child is born as healthy and "normal" as possible?