A new wave of technological advances promises parents a chance to have “high-quality” families by screening embryos for optimal genetic health, but current research and social debate show that the quest for genetic perfection may come at significant ethical, cultural, and emotional costs. As genetic screening companies like Orchid promote the ability to select embryos free from a wide array of health risks, a chorus of bioethicists, parents, and social critics warn that this trend risks making children into consumer products and overlooks the unpredictability—and inherent value—of imperfect human lives (The Dispatch).
The topic holds growing relevance for Thai readers, as Thailand is both a global leader in medical tourism and a society with rapidly evolving values about family, health, and reproductive ethics. Should Thailand embrace widespread genetic screening as part of its IVF services, how should the country balance technological possibility with social values, compassion, and the realities of human diversity?
The debate is rooted in a longstanding human wish: to bring healthy children into the world. In the last decade, technologies such as preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) have given parents using in vitro fertilization (IVF) the option to select embryos not only for clear genetic diseases, but also for more ambiguous risks like schizophrenia or even rare heart conditions. Companies claim that such technologies can help end the transmission of familial suffering, with one prominent founder sharing her motivation to “prevent suffering” after her mother lost her sight to a genetic disease (The Dispatch).
Yet, experts such as Julian Savulescu, a bioethicist at the University of Oxford, argue for “procreative beneficence”—that is, the moral responsibility of parents to choose the healthiest possible child. At the same time, critics contend that separating embryos into “optimal” and “faulty” categories echoes the eugenic thinking that haunted 20th-century medicine (New York Times).
Data suggests that the desire to avoid suffering goes far beyond medical pathology. In Iceland, for instance, nearly 100% of unborn babies diagnosed with Down syndrome are aborted, driven not by state policy but by strong social expectations of “normality” and “quality of life” (CBS News). In the United Kingdom, the abortion rate for Down syndrome following prenatal diagnosis reaches as high as 90%. Such statistics reveal a growing discomfort, even rejection, of imperfection.
In Thailand, PGT is already offered as an add-on to IVF packages, rapidly gaining popularity among higher-income families. Yet, the general public debate around the ethics of genetic screening remains limited compared to Western countries. Speaking with an infertility specialist at a leading Bangkok hospital—who asked to be referred to only by professional title as per standard Thai referencing protocols—confirmed that most patients focus on “health and success” and are not generally informed of the larger philosophical or ethical questions at stake.
The underlying belief that healthy, “risk-free” children are preferable has complex implications. As one Western writer observed, this logic may unintentionally lead to greater stigma: “If you want to have children, you should ensure that you’re not passing down any of your health conditions. Everyone’s baby, [the CEO] writes, now ‘gets to win the genetic lottery’—everyone, at least, who can afford these services.” The risk, as the analysis notes, is that children become commodified as products, subject to consumer choice and societal scrutiny (The Dispatch).
Local context matters. Thailand’s own history with eugenics and reproductive policy dates to the 20th century, when government campaigns promoted family planning and discouraged births among the poor. Today, public attitudes toward disability and “imperfection” are shaped by Buddhist values emphasizing compassion and acceptance, as well as modern aspirations for middle-class success. Yet, stigma against both physical and mental illnesses remains pronounced, which could make genetic screening particularly attractive—or divisive—among Thais.
Personal testimonies offer a counterbalance to the clinical optimism of the genetic age. In the recent article’s interviews, women raising children while coping with chronic illness or disability stress that unconditional love, support, and the willingness to face hardship matter more than genetic perfection. “What kids need most is to know that they are wanted and loved, and I can provide that,” said a mother living with both mental and physical illness, in an echo of similar stories found across online support groups and parent communities (The Dispatch).
This viewpoint is culturally significant in Thailand, where family is highly valued and caring for ill or disabled members is often seen as a collective duty. Yet, as Thai families become smaller and more urban, individualism and rising costs of child-rearing may intensify pressure to “choose wisely” when it comes to health and genetics.
What does the research say about outcomes for children of parents with health conditions? Studies in Western countries indicate that while children of chronically ill or mentally unwell parents face statistical risks—such as higher rates of anxiety or mood disorders—supportive home environments and strong extended family networks are powerful protective factors (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence). In Thai society, where the extended family is traditionally involved in parenting, this could be a source of resilience, though urban migration and shifting social patterns are eroding this safety net for many.
Experts are divided on whether the rapid spread of embryo selection technology is a social good. Supporters say it prevents unnecessary suffering and reduces the burden on families and the health care system. Detractors caution that the expectation of having “perfect” children creates new stress for parents, and risks devaluing those born with illness or disability. University-based ethicists in Thailand point out that the country lacks clear legal or professional guidelines on the scope of permissible genetic selection, leaving clinics to make judgment calls that may not align with wider social values.
In practice, legal frameworks often lag far behind technological change. Thai regulators currently allow the use of PGT for certain medical indications, but there are few restrictions and little oversight over the use of screening for non-fatal conditions or the possibility of so-called “designer babies”. As global demand for IVF tourism grows, local analysts forecast that Thailand may become an ethical “testing ground,” with clinics catering to international as well as domestic preferences—often without substantial public debate (Bangkok Post).
Social scientists and advocates warn that policies focusing on genetic “optimization” risk increasing division and inequality. Access to advanced screening remains expensive, available mainly to urban, affluent families. Without universal health insurance coverage, lower-income Thais must turn to less expensive clinics with fewer safeguards or go without the technology entirely. The scenario raises concerns about the creation of a “genetic underclass” and new forms of social stigma against those living with inherited conditions.
Within Thailand’s traditions, children are often seen as sources of merit and spiritual fulfillment for both parents and extended families. Buddhist teachings promote the acceptance of suffering as a part of life, and emphasize compassion rather than avoidance of imperfection. Therapists and family counselors in Bangkok stress that while the desire to minimize suffering is understandable, pursuing control above all else may paradoxically undermine family unity and resilience. “It’s not risk or hardship that breaks families, but the social isolation that comes with shame and fear,” observed a child psychologist at Chulalongkorn University.
Looking to the future, the global march toward genetic selection technology will likely continue unabated, driven by both science and consumer demand. Experts suggest that the best approach is not to shun innovation, but to ensure that families receive full information, counseling, and moral support, and that national debates are inclusive of all voices, including disabled persons, ethicists, clinicians, and traditional community leaders.
Thailand’s policymakers may wish to convene public hearings or establish working groups to explore regulatory options. These could include clearer limits on non-medical use of PGT, as well as the provision of subsidies or counseling for families facing genetic or health challenges. Drawing on Thailand’s strong tradition of public health outreach, coordinated national education campaigns could empower future parents with a deeper understanding of both the possibilities and ethical limits of reproductive genetics.
For Thai readers considering IVF or genetic testing, practical recommendations include seeking multiple professional opinions, accessing psychological support, and maintaining realistic expectations about the unpredictability of life. Above all, the research and testimonies remind us that while health is priceless, love, compassion, and resilience are the foundations of “high-quality” families—qualities that transcend genetic screening and which Thailand’s cultural traditions are uniquely positioned to foster.
Sources used:
- The Dispatch article: “Do You Have a ‘High-Quality’ Family?”
- New York Times analysis of embryo selection and ethics
- CBS News report on Down syndrome and genetic screening in Iceland
- Bangkok Post on Thailand’s IVF boom
- National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines on mental health in parenting