Article Text

Download PDFPDF
A situation of ethical limbo and preimplantation genetic diagnosis
  1. Tomasz Żuradzki
  1. Correspondence to Dr Tomasz Żuradzki, Jagiellonian University, Institute of Philosophy, ul. Grodzka 52, Krakow 31-044, Poland; t.zuradzki{at}

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

I start with a brief information about the context of my previous paper1 since it is relevant for this discussion and, as Xavier Symons notices, I am ‘a bioethicist in a country where the statements of the Catholic Church have significant impact on medico-ethical policy.’2 In 2012, the Bioethics Committee of the Polish Academy of Sciences produced an Opinion calling for the regulation of preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) (now it is not regulated but practiced).3 Some members of the Committee objected to the Opinion invoking their pro-life views. If their position were accepted by the legislator, PGD would be illegal, although in vitro fertilization (IVF), prenatal diagnosis and the termination of pregnancy in some rare cases (eg, when there is a great probability that a future child will suffer from an irreversible and serious disease) are legal. This could lead to absurd situations when an embryo implanted during the IVF procedure could be legally aborted because of genetic illness that could have been tested during PGD. I assumed that this legal solution would be hard to be acceptable for everyone, no matter which moral views she or he subscribes to. So I proposed a universal argument claiming that if IVF is legal and practiced, there is no moral ground to object legalisation of …

View Full Text


  • Funding The research was supported by a grant ‘Iuventus Plus’ funded by the Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education (no. IP2011065171).

  • Competing interests None.

  • Provenance and peer review Commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

Linked Articles