Applying the preconception welfare principle and the harm threshold: Doing more harm than good?

Abstract

This article critically examines the application of the preconception welfare principle (PCWP) and the harm threshold engaged in the regulation of in vitro fertilization and pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD). It separates the harm threshold into two distinct categories of harm-based regulation: Familial harm and genetic harm. This article opposes the intuitive aspect upon which the familial harm threshold hinges, and it is argued that the familial aspect of the PCWP assessment should be abolished. It is suggested that current laws protecting the welfare of the existing children are sufficiently responsive to the welfare risk factors included in regulation. The express provisions regulating PGD are also examined and the engagement of the genetic harm threshold is explored. It is argued that the genetic harm threshold is inconsistently applied and engages unfairly in practice. Given the lack of transparency revealed in the current framework and the draconian engagement of both harm thresholds in practice, this article achieves its overarching purpose of challenging the legitimacy of the PCWP.