title: Who should pay for bad genes?
abstract: Parents have long been able to influence the genetic composition of their children through their choice of a reproductive partner, if only very approximately. They are, however, increasingly able to determine the genetic make-up of their children in other, more precise ways, such as by selecting a particular gamete or embryo or by genetically modifying an embryo prior to artificial implantation. This Article discusses parents' obligations to their children and other members of the community stemming from their children's genes. In a just state, it argues, parents would be responsible for redressing any genetic disadvantage their children suffer as a result of parents' voluntary actions. Within the context of a liberal egalitarian account of distributive justice, this responsibility might most fairly be discharged through a compulsory insurance plan that provides compensation to genetically disadvantaged children when they might have had non-disadvantaged children instead would in some circumstances incur greater liability, because they could not fairly push the cost of their choices off on other members of the insurance pool. The Article also asks whether parents wrong a child by allowing it to be born with a genetic impairment when, had they taken steps to remove the impairment, the unimpaired child they had would have been a different person from the genetically disadvantaged child because the better-off child's capacities and experiences differed considerably from those that the disadvantaged child would have had. Contrary to many people's moral intuitions, the Article argues that parents do not wrong such a child. Nevertheless, parents remain morally obligated to bear any added costs occasioned by the child's impairment. Any other approach would allow them unjustly to shift the burden of their choices to other parents. Finally, the Article takes up the much debated question of whether parents harm a child by allowing it to be born with a life not worth living when they could have prevented its birth. It suggests that the answer to this question should be irrelevant to parents' legal liability. Acting on behalf of the parental insurance pool, the state may nonetheless adopt a variety of measures to help potential parents avoid giving birth to such children, which one can assume virtually all would prefer.
authors.affiliation: School of Law, University of California, Berkeley (Boalt Hall), USA.
authors.forename: Eric
authors.initials: E
authors.lastname: Rakowski
mesh_terms: D002648:Child; D002676:Child, Unwanted; D019988:Children with Disabilities; D005053:Eugenics; D005315:Fetal Diseases / Q000601:surgery; D005817:Genetic Counseling / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D030342:Genetic Diseases, Inborn / Q000191:economics*; D005820:Genetic Testing; D015316:Genetic Therapy; D006801:Humans; D007223:Infant; D007231:Infant, Newborn; D007341:Insurance; D016365:Liability, Legal; D028681:Moral Obligations; D009014:Morals; D010287:Parent-Child Relations; D010290:Parents; D010375:Pedigree; D019836:Preimplantation Diagnosis; D011296:Prenatal Diagnosis; D011640:Public Policy; D012933:Social Identification; D012935:Social Justice; D014481:United States; D026712:Value of Life; D015974:Wrongful Life