Question Description
Directions: The passage below is followed by a question based on its content. Answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage.Parents in the U.K. with children suffering from some potentially fatal genetic disease can heave a sigh of relief. Thanks to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA), the last hurdle to creating babies specifically to save older siblings suffering from an incurable genetic disease has been cleared. The issue was mired in controversy with pro–life people opposing permission tooth and nail. But what makes the technology controversial in the first place? Pre–implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) allows the removal of a cell from an embryo created through in–vitro fertilization. The cell so removed is studied for any genetic disorders. This technique combined with tissue typing allows the parents to choose the embryo that has a perfect (tissue) match with the sibling suffering from the genetic disorder. Once convinced of a match, the embryo is implanted into the mothers womb and the mother allowed to proceed to full pregnancy. The stem cells are removed from the newborns umbilical cord at the time of birth and transplanted to the older sibling suffering from the disease. Once transplanted, the older siblings ailment is thus cured.But what makes the issue contentious is the destruction of all embryos that lack the match. Add to this the view held by the pro–life people that producing a baby with the express intention of using its stem cells to save an older sibling is commodification of life. Spare parts, transplant source, potential life savers are some of the labels that such babies get. To quote David King, Director of the pressure group Human Genetics Alert, "it is wrong to create a child simply as a means to an end, however good that end might be, because to do so turns the child into an object." The opposition stems from a basic tenet that pro–life people hold that any embryo destroyed wantonly is a person killed. In other words, embryo destroyed is a murder committed. If this is accepted as correct, the technique becomes morally and ethically wrong. But HFEA thought otherwise. In reality, couples choose to have babies for various compelling reasons — to save a marriage, to beget a baby of a particular sex, companionship for the older sibling, to name a few. Going in for more children in utter desperation to find perfect (tissue) match, is one of them. Science and technology have only helped such couples increase their chances of success.Even as the pro–life groups are up in arms, the double standards that were practiced until HFEA came out with this notification come out clearly. For instance, it was considered morally and ethically right to do pre–implantation genetic diagnosis and tissue typing to ensure that the embryo was free from a particular genetic disorder that its parents suffer from. According to a report published in the New Scientist, some 300 healthy babies have been born in Europe in the last three years after being subjected to such screening. The number of embryos that were summarily destroyed in the process is anybodys guess. But pro–life people claim that it is ethically right to indulge in such a practice if it is for the babys good and not otherwise. But the biggest hypocrisy till date was that permission was granted to parents to use the technology to create a life–saving sibling when the parents suffered from a genetic disorder but were denied permission when the older sibling suffered from a genetic disease that came about through sporadic mutation that was not passed on by parents.Neither did the pro–life groups opposition that the procedure harms the embryo stand scrutiny as HFEA was finally convinced of its safety. "We could not possibly approve the procedure if the child concerned was going to be put through any pain and distress," said Dr. Vivienne Nathanson, head of ethics and policy at the British Medical Association (BMA). The British Medical Association staunchly supports the technique to save an older sibling. The very fact that it is permitted in embryos when the parents suffer from a genetic disorder themselves is proof enough. The green signal to pre–implantation genetic diagnosis comes with a catch though. It will be permitted only when the disease is very serious and life threatening, and when there is no other way to treat the child. `Designer babies chosen for eye colour, intelligence, skin texture or any other parental whim, a fear so often voiced by pro–life groups, should be stuff befitting an engrossing fiction rather than reality. Tough regulation is the solution.Q.The author would agree with none of the following, except thata)till date permission was only granted for creating a life saving sibling when the parents suffered from a genetic disorderb)till date permission was only granted for creating a life saving sibling when the genetic disease came about through sporadic mutationc)till date permission was granted for creating a life saving sibling, only when the disease involved was life threateningd)both(1) and (3)e)both (1) and (2)Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? for CAT 2024 is part of CAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CAT exam syllabus. Information about Directions: The passage below is followed by a question based on its content. Answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage.Parents in the U.K. with children suffering from some potentially fatal genetic disease can heave a sigh of relief. Thanks to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA), the last hurdle to creating babies specifically to save older siblings suffering from an incurable genetic disease has been cleared. The issue was mired in controversy with pro–life people opposing permission tooth and nail. But what makes the technology controversial in the first place? Pre–implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) allows the removal of a cell from an embryo created through in–vitro fertilization. The cell so removed is studied for any genetic disorders. This technique combined with tissue typing allows the parents to choose the embryo that has a perfect (tissue) match with the sibling suffering from the genetic disorder. Once convinced of a match, the embryo is implanted into the mothers womb and the mother allowed to proceed to full pregnancy. The stem cells are removed from the newborns umbilical cord at the time of birth and transplanted to the older sibling suffering from the disease. Once transplanted, the older siblings ailment is thus cured.But what makes the issue contentious is the destruction of all embryos that lack the match. Add to this the view held by the pro–life people that producing a baby with the express intention of using its stem cells to save an older sibling is commodification of life. Spare parts, transplant source, potential life savers are some of the labels that such babies get. To quote David King, Director of the pressure group Human Genetics Alert, "it is wrong to create a child simply as a means to an end, however good that end might be, because to do so turns the child into an object." The opposition stems from a basic tenet that pro–life people hold that any embryo destroyed wantonly is a person killed. In other words, embryo destroyed is a murder committed. If this is accepted as correct, the technique becomes morally and ethically wrong. But HFEA thought otherwise. In reality, couples choose to have babies for various compelling reasons — to save a marriage, to beget a baby of a particular sex, companionship for the older sibling, to name a few. Going in for more children in utter desperation to find perfect (tissue) match, is one of them. Science and technology have only helped such couples increase their chances of success.Even as the pro–life groups are up in arms, the double standards that were practiced until HFEA came out with this notification come out clearly. For instance, it was considered morally and ethically right to do pre–implantation genetic diagnosis and tissue typing to ensure that the embryo was free from a particular genetic disorder that its parents suffer from. According to a report published in the New Scientist, some 300 healthy babies have been born in Europe in the last three years after being subjected to such screening. The number of embryos that were summarily destroyed in the process is anybodys guess. But pro–life people claim that it is ethically right to indulge in such a practice if it is for the babys good and not otherwise. But the biggest hypocrisy till date was that permission was granted to parents to use the technology to create a life–saving sibling when the parents suffered from a genetic disorder but were denied permission when the older sibling suffered from a genetic disease that came about through sporadic mutation that was not passed on by parents.Neither did the pro–life groups opposition that the procedure harms the embryo stand scrutiny as HFEA was finally convinced of its safety. "We could not possibly approve the procedure if the child concerned was going to be put through any pain and distress," said Dr. Vivienne Nathanson, head of ethics and policy at the British Medical Association (BMA). The British Medical Association staunchly supports the technique to save an older sibling. The very fact that it is permitted in embryos when the parents suffer from a genetic disorder themselves is proof enough. The green signal to pre–implantation genetic diagnosis comes with a catch though. It will be permitted only when the disease is very serious and life threatening, and when there is no other way to treat the child. `Designer babies chosen for eye colour, intelligence, skin texture or any other parental whim, a fear so often voiced by pro–life groups, should be stuff befitting an engrossing fiction rather than reality. Tough regulation is the solution.Q.The author would agree with none of the following, except thata)till date permission was only granted for creating a life saving sibling when the parents suffered from a genetic disorderb)till date permission was only granted for creating a life saving sibling when the genetic disease came about through sporadic mutationc)till date permission was granted for creating a life saving sibling, only when the disease involved was life threateningd)both(1) and (3)e)both (1) and (2)Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Directions: The passage below is followed by a question based on its content. Answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage.Parents in the U.K. with children suffering from some potentially fatal genetic disease can heave a sigh of relief. Thanks to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA), the last hurdle to creating babies specifically to save older siblings suffering from an incurable genetic disease has been cleared. The issue was mired in controversy with pro–life people opposing permission tooth and nail. But what makes the technology controversial in the first place? Pre–implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) allows the removal of a cell from an embryo created through in–vitro fertilization. The cell so removed is studied for any genetic disorders. This technique combined with tissue typing allows the parents to choose the embryo that has a perfect (tissue) match with the sibling suffering from the genetic disorder. Once convinced of a match, the embryo is implanted into the mothers womb and the mother allowed to proceed to full pregnancy. The stem cells are removed from the newborns umbilical cord at the time of birth and transplanted to the older sibling suffering from the disease. Once transplanted, the older siblings ailment is thus cured.But what makes the issue contentious is the destruction of all embryos that lack the match. Add to this the view held by the pro–life people that producing a baby with the express intention of using its stem cells to save an older sibling is commodification of life. Spare parts, transplant source, potential life savers are some of the labels that such babies get. To quote David King, Director of the pressure group Human Genetics Alert, "it is wrong to create a child simply as a means to an end, however good that end might be, because to do so turns the child into an object." The opposition stems from a basic tenet that pro–life people hold that any embryo destroyed wantonly is a person killed. In other words, embryo destroyed is a murder committed. If this is accepted as correct, the technique becomes morally and ethically wrong. But HFEA thought otherwise. In reality, couples choose to have babies for various compelling reasons — to save a marriage, to beget a baby of a particular sex, companionship for the older sibling, to name a few. Going in for more children in utter desperation to find perfect (tissue) match, is one of them. Science and technology have only helped such couples increase their chances of success.Even as the pro–life groups are up in arms, the double standards that were practiced until HFEA came out with this notification come out clearly. For instance, it was considered morally and ethically right to do pre–implantation genetic diagnosis and tissue typing to ensure that the embryo was free from a particular genetic disorder that its parents suffer from. According to a report published in the New Scientist, some 300 healthy babies have been born in Europe in the last three years after being subjected to such screening. The number of embryos that were summarily destroyed in the process is anybodys guess. But pro–life people claim that it is ethically right to indulge in such a practice if it is for the babys good and not otherwise. But the biggest hypocrisy till date was that permission was granted to parents to use the technology to create a life–saving sibling when the parents suffered from a genetic disorder but were denied permission when the older sibling suffered from a genetic disease that came about through sporadic mutation that was not passed on by parents.Neither did the pro–life groups opposition that the procedure harms the embryo stand scrutiny as HFEA was finally convinced of its safety. "We could not possibly approve the procedure if the child concerned was going to be put through any pain and distress," said Dr. Vivienne Nathanson, head of ethics and policy at the British Medical Association (BMA). The British Medical Association staunchly supports the technique to save an older sibling. The very fact that it is permitted in embryos when the parents suffer from a genetic disorder themselves is proof enough. The green signal to pre–implantation genetic diagnosis comes with a catch though. It will be permitted only when the disease is very serious and life threatening, and when there is no other way to treat the child. `Designer babies chosen for eye colour, intelligence, skin texture or any other parental whim, a fear so often voiced by pro–life groups, should be stuff befitting an engrossing fiction rather than reality. Tough regulation is the solution.Q.The author would agree with none of the following, except thata)till date permission was only granted for creating a life saving sibling when the parents suffered from a genetic disorderb)till date permission was only granted for creating a life saving sibling when the genetic disease came about through sporadic mutationc)till date permission was granted for creating a life saving sibling, only when the disease involved was life threateningd)both(1) and (3)e)both (1) and (2)Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Directions: The passage below is followed by a question based on its content. Answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage.Parents in the U.K. with children suffering from some potentially fatal genetic disease can heave a sigh of relief. Thanks to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA), the last hurdle to creating babies specifically to save older siblings suffering from an incurable genetic disease has been cleared. The issue was mired in controversy with pro–life people opposing permission tooth and nail. But what makes the technology controversial in the first place? Pre–implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) allows the removal of a cell from an embryo created through in–vitro fertilization. The cell so removed is studied for any genetic disorders. This technique combined with tissue typing allows the parents to choose the embryo that has a perfect (tissue) match with the sibling suffering from the genetic disorder. Once convinced of a match, the embryo is implanted into the mothers womb and the mother allowed to proceed to full pregnancy. The stem cells are removed from the newborns umbilical cord at the time of birth and transplanted to the older sibling suffering from the disease. Once transplanted, the older siblings ailment is thus cured.But what makes the issue contentious is the destruction of all embryos that lack the match. Add to this the view held by the pro–life people that producing a baby with the express intention of using its stem cells to save an older sibling is commodification of life. Spare parts, transplant source, potential life savers are some of the labels that such babies get. To quote David King, Director of the pressure group Human Genetics Alert, "it is wrong to create a child simply as a means to an end, however good that end might be, because to do so turns the child into an object." The opposition stems from a basic tenet that pro–life people hold that any embryo destroyed wantonly is a person killed. In other words, embryo destroyed is a murder committed. If this is accepted as correct, the technique becomes morally and ethically wrong. But HFEA thought otherwise. In reality, couples choose to have babies for various compelling reasons — to save a marriage, to beget a baby of a particular sex, companionship for the older sibling, to name a few. Going in for more children in utter desperation to find perfect (tissue) match, is one of them. Science and technology have only helped such couples increase their chances of success.Even as the pro–life groups are up in arms, the double standards that were practiced until HFEA came out with this notification come out clearly. For instance, it was considered morally and ethically right to do pre–implantation genetic diagnosis and tissue typing to ensure that the embryo was free from a particular genetic disorder that its parents suffer from. According to a report published in the New Scientist, some 300 healthy babies have been born in Europe in the last three years after being subjected to such screening. The number of embryos that were summarily destroyed in the process is anybodys guess. But pro–life people claim that it is ethically right to indulge in such a practice if it is for the babys good and not otherwise. But the biggest hypocrisy till date was that permission was granted to parents to use the technology to create a life–saving sibling when the parents suffered from a genetic disorder but were denied permission when the older sibling suffered from a genetic disease that came about through sporadic mutation that was not passed on by parents.Neither did the pro–life groups opposition that the procedure harms the embryo stand scrutiny as HFEA was finally convinced of its safety. "We could not possibly approve the procedure if the child concerned was going to be put through any pain and distress," said Dr. Vivienne Nathanson, head of ethics and policy at the British Medical Association (BMA). The British Medical Association staunchly supports the technique to save an older sibling. The very fact that it is permitted in embryos when the parents suffer from a genetic disorder themselves is proof enough. The green signal to pre–implantation genetic diagnosis comes with a catch though. It will be permitted only when the disease is very serious and life threatening, and when there is no other way to treat the child. `Designer babies chosen for eye colour, intelligence, skin texture or any other parental whim, a fear so often voiced by pro–life groups, should be stuff befitting an engrossing fiction rather than reality. Tough regulation is the solution.Q.The author would agree with none of the following, except thata)till date permission was only granted for creating a life saving sibling when the parents suffered from a genetic disorderb)till date permission was only granted for creating a life saving sibling when the genetic disease came about through sporadic mutationc)till date permission was granted for creating a life saving sibling, only when the disease involved was life threateningd)both(1) and (3)e)both (1) and (2)Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of Directions: The passage below is followed by a question based on its content. Answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage.Parents in the U.K. with children suffering from some potentially fatal genetic disease can heave a sigh of relief. Thanks to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA), the last hurdle to creating babies specifically to save older siblings suffering from an incurable genetic disease has been cleared. The issue was mired in controversy with pro–life people opposing permission tooth and nail. But what makes the technology controversial in the first place? Pre–implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) allows the removal of a cell from an embryo created through in–vitro fertilization. The cell so removed is studied for any genetic disorders. This technique combined with tissue typing allows the parents to choose the embryo that has a perfect (tissue) match with the sibling suffering from the genetic disorder. Once convinced of a match, the embryo is implanted into the mothers womb and the mother allowed to proceed to full pregnancy. The stem cells are removed from the newborns umbilical cord at the time of birth and transplanted to the older sibling suffering from the disease. Once transplanted, the older siblings ailment is thus cured.But what makes the issue contentious is the destruction of all embryos that lack the match. Add to this the view held by the pro–life people that producing a baby with the express intention of using its stem cells to save an older sibling is commodification of life. Spare parts, transplant source, potential life savers are some of the labels that such babies get. To quote David King, Director of the pressure group Human Genetics Alert, "it is wrong to create a child simply as a means to an end, however good that end might be, because to do so turns the child into an object." The opposition stems from a basic tenet that pro–life people hold that any embryo destroyed wantonly is a person killed. In other words, embryo destroyed is a murder committed. If this is accepted as correct, the technique becomes morally and ethically wrong. But HFEA thought otherwise. In reality, couples choose to have babies for various compelling reasons — to save a marriage, to beget a baby of a particular sex, companionship for the older sibling, to name a few. Going in for more children in utter desperation to find perfect (tissue) match, is one of them. Science and technology have only helped such couples increase their chances of success.Even as the pro–life groups are up in arms, the double standards that were practiced until HFEA came out with this notification come out clearly. For instance, it was considered morally and ethically right to do pre–implantation genetic diagnosis and tissue typing to ensure that the embryo was free from a particular genetic disorder that its parents suffer from. According to a report published in the New Scientist, some 300 healthy babies have been born in Europe in the last three years after being subjected to such screening. The number of embryos that were summarily destroyed in the process is anybodys guess. But pro–life people claim that it is ethically right to indulge in such a practice if it is for the babys good and not otherwise. But the biggest hypocrisy till date was that permission was granted to parents to use the technology to create a life–saving sibling when the parents suffered from a genetic disorder but were denied permission when the older sibling suffered from a genetic disease that came about through sporadic mutation that was not passed on by parents.Neither did the pro–life groups opposition that the procedure harms the embryo stand scrutiny as HFEA was finally convinced of its safety. "We could not possibly approve the procedure if the child concerned was going to be put through any pain and distress," said Dr. Vivienne Nathanson, head of ethics and policy at the British Medical Association (BMA). The British Medical Association staunchly supports the technique to save an older sibling. The very fact that it is permitted in embryos when the parents suffer from a genetic disorder themselves is proof enough. The green signal to pre–implantation genetic diagnosis comes with a catch though. It will be permitted only when the disease is very serious and life threatening, and when there is no other way to treat the child. `Designer babies chosen for eye colour, intelligence, skin texture or any other parental whim, a fear so often voiced by pro–life groups, should be stuff befitting an engrossing fiction rather than reality. Tough regulation is the solution.Q.The author would agree with none of the following, except thata)till date permission was only granted for creating a life saving sibling when the parents suffered from a genetic disorderb)till date permission was only granted for creating a life saving sibling when the genetic disease came about through sporadic mutationc)till date permission was granted for creating a life saving sibling, only when the disease involved was life threateningd)both(1) and (3)e)both (1) and (2)Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Directions: The passage below is followed by a question based on its content. Answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage.Parents in the U.K. with children suffering from some potentially fatal genetic disease can heave a sigh of relief. Thanks to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA), the last hurdle to creating babies specifically to save older siblings suffering from an incurable genetic disease has been cleared. The issue was mired in controversy with pro–life people opposing permission tooth and nail. But what makes the technology controversial in the first place? Pre–implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) allows the removal of a cell from an embryo created through in–vitro fertilization. The cell so removed is studied for any genetic disorders. This technique combined with tissue typing allows the parents to choose the embryo that has a perfect (tissue) match with the sibling suffering from the genetic disorder. Once convinced of a match, the embryo is implanted into the mothers womb and the mother allowed to proceed to full pregnancy. The stem cells are removed from the newborns umbilical cord at the time of birth and transplanted to the older sibling suffering from the disease. Once transplanted, the older siblings ailment is thus cured.But what makes the issue contentious is the destruction of all embryos that lack the match. Add to this the view held by the pro–life people that producing a baby with the express intention of using its stem cells to save an older sibling is commodification of life. Spare parts, transplant source, potential life savers are some of the labels that such babies get. To quote David King, Director of the pressure group Human Genetics Alert, "it is wrong to create a child simply as a means to an end, however good that end might be, because to do so turns the child into an object." The opposition stems from a basic tenet that pro–life people hold that any embryo destroyed wantonly is a person killed. In other words, embryo destroyed is a murder committed. If this is accepted as correct, the technique becomes morally and ethically wrong. But HFEA thought otherwise. In reality, couples choose to have babies for various compelling reasons — to save a marriage, to beget a baby of a particular sex, companionship for the older sibling, to name a few. Going in for more children in utter desperation to find perfect (tissue) match, is one of them. Science and technology have only helped such couples increase their chances of success.Even as the pro–life groups are up in arms, the double standards that were practiced until HFEA came out with this notification come out clearly. For instance, it was considered morally and ethically right to do pre–implantation genetic diagnosis and tissue typing to ensure that the embryo was free from a particular genetic disorder that its parents suffer from. According to a report published in the New Scientist, some 300 healthy babies have been born in Europe in the last three years after being subjected to such screening. The number of embryos that were summarily destroyed in the process is anybodys guess. But pro–life people claim that it is ethically right to indulge in such a practice if it is for the babys good and not otherwise. But the biggest hypocrisy till date was that permission was granted to parents to use the technology to create a life–saving sibling when the parents suffered from a genetic disorder but were denied permission when the older sibling suffered from a genetic disease that came about through sporadic mutation that was not passed on by parents.Neither did the pro–life groups opposition that the procedure harms the embryo stand scrutiny as HFEA was finally convinced of its safety. "We could not possibly approve the procedure if the child concerned was going to be put through any pain and distress," said Dr. Vivienne Nathanson, head of ethics and policy at the British Medical Association (BMA). The British Medical Association staunchly supports the technique to save an older sibling. The very fact that it is permitted in embryos when the parents suffer from a genetic disorder themselves is proof enough. The green signal to pre–implantation genetic diagnosis comes with a catch though. It will be permitted only when the disease is very serious and life threatening, and when there is no other way to treat the child. `Designer babies chosen for eye colour, intelligence, skin texture or any other parental whim, a fear so often voiced by pro–life groups, should be stuff befitting an engrossing fiction rather than reality. Tough regulation is the solution.Q.The author would agree with none of the following, except thata)till date permission was only granted for creating a life saving sibling when the parents suffered from a genetic disorderb)till date permission was only granted for creating a life saving sibling when the genetic disease came about through sporadic mutationc)till date permission was granted for creating a life saving sibling, only when the disease involved was life threateningd)both(1) and (3)e)both (1) and (2)Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Directions: The passage below is followed by a question based on its content. Answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage.Parents in the U.K. with children suffering from some potentially fatal genetic disease can heave a sigh of relief. Thanks to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA), the last hurdle to creating babies specifically to save older siblings suffering from an incurable genetic disease has been cleared. The issue was mired in controversy with pro–life people opposing permission tooth and nail. But what makes the technology controversial in the first place? Pre–implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) allows the removal of a cell from an embryo created through in–vitro fertilization. The cell so removed is studied for any genetic disorders. This technique combined with tissue typing allows the parents to choose the embryo that has a perfect (tissue) match with the sibling suffering from the genetic disorder. Once convinced of a match, the embryo is implanted into the mothers womb and the mother allowed to proceed to full pregnancy. The stem cells are removed from the newborns umbilical cord at the time of birth and transplanted to the older sibling suffering from the disease. Once transplanted, the older siblings ailment is thus cured.But what makes the issue contentious is the destruction of all embryos that lack the match. Add to this the view held by the pro–life people that producing a baby with the express intention of using its stem cells to save an older sibling is commodification of life. Spare parts, transplant source, potential life savers are some of the labels that such babies get. To quote David King, Director of the pressure group Human Genetics Alert, "it is wrong to create a child simply as a means to an end, however good that end might be, because to do so turns the child into an object." The opposition stems from a basic tenet that pro–life people hold that any embryo destroyed wantonly is a person killed. In other words, embryo destroyed is a murder committed. If this is accepted as correct, the technique becomes morally and ethically wrong. But HFEA thought otherwise. In reality, couples choose to have babies for various compelling reasons — to save a marriage, to beget a baby of a particular sex, companionship for the older sibling, to name a few. Going in for more children in utter desperation to find perfect (tissue) match, is one of them. Science and technology have only helped such couples increase their chances of success.Even as the pro–life groups are up in arms, the double standards that were practiced until HFEA came out with this notification come out clearly. For instance, it was considered morally and ethically right to do pre–implantation genetic diagnosis and tissue typing to ensure that the embryo was free from a particular genetic disorder that its parents suffer from. According to a report published in the New Scientist, some 300 healthy babies have been born in Europe in the last three years after being subjected to such screening. The number of embryos that were summarily destroyed in the process is anybodys guess. But pro–life people claim that it is ethically right to indulge in such a practice if it is for the babys good and not otherwise. But the biggest hypocrisy till date was that permission was granted to parents to use the technology to create a life–saving sibling when the parents suffered from a genetic disorder but were denied permission when the older sibling suffered from a genetic disease that came about through sporadic mutation that was not passed on by parents.Neither did the pro–life groups opposition that the procedure harms the embryo stand scrutiny as HFEA was finally convinced of its safety. "We could not possibly approve the procedure if the child concerned was going to be put through any pain and distress," said Dr. Vivienne Nathanson, head of ethics and policy at the British Medical Association (BMA). The British Medical Association staunchly supports the technique to save an older sibling. The very fact that it is permitted in embryos when the parents suffer from a genetic disorder themselves is proof enough. The green signal to pre–implantation genetic diagnosis comes with a catch though. It will be permitted only when the disease is very serious and life threatening, and when there is no other way to treat the child. `Designer babies chosen for eye colour, intelligence, skin texture or any other parental whim, a fear so often voiced by pro–life groups, should be stuff befitting an engrossing fiction rather than reality. Tough regulation is the solution.Q.The author would agree with none of the following, except thata)till date permission was only granted for creating a life saving sibling when the parents suffered from a genetic disorderb)till date permission was only granted for creating a life saving sibling when the genetic disease came about through sporadic mutationc)till date permission was granted for creating a life saving sibling, only when the disease involved was life threateningd)both(1) and (3)e)both (1) and (2)Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Directions: The passage below is followed by a question based on its content. Answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage.Parents in the U.K. with children suffering from some potentially fatal genetic disease can heave a sigh of relief. Thanks to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA), the last hurdle to creating babies specifically to save older siblings suffering from an incurable genetic disease has been cleared. The issue was mired in controversy with pro–life people opposing permission tooth and nail. But what makes the technology controversial in the first place? Pre–implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) allows the removal of a cell from an embryo created through in–vitro fertilization. The cell so removed is studied for any genetic disorders. This technique combined with tissue typing allows the parents to choose the embryo that has a perfect (tissue) match with the sibling suffering from the genetic disorder. Once convinced of a match, the embryo is implanted into the mothers womb and the mother allowed to proceed to full pregnancy. The stem cells are removed from the newborns umbilical cord at the time of birth and transplanted to the older sibling suffering from the disease. Once transplanted, the older siblings ailment is thus cured.But what makes the issue contentious is the destruction of all embryos that lack the match. Add to this the view held by the pro–life people that producing a baby with the express intention of using its stem cells to save an older sibling is commodification of life. Spare parts, transplant source, potential life savers are some of the labels that such babies get. To quote David King, Director of the pressure group Human Genetics Alert, "it is wrong to create a child simply as a means to an end, however good that end might be, because to do so turns the child into an object." The opposition stems from a basic tenet that pro–life people hold that any embryo destroyed wantonly is a person killed. In other words, embryo destroyed is a murder committed. If this is accepted as correct, the technique becomes morally and ethically wrong. But HFEA thought otherwise. In reality, couples choose to have babies for various compelling reasons — to save a marriage, to beget a baby of a particular sex, companionship for the older sibling, to name a few. Going in for more children in utter desperation to find perfect (tissue) match, is one of them. Science and technology have only helped such couples increase their chances of success.Even as the pro–life groups are up in arms, the double standards that were practiced until HFEA came out with this notification come out clearly. For instance, it was considered morally and ethically right to do pre–implantation genetic diagnosis and tissue typing to ensure that the embryo was free from a particular genetic disorder that its parents suffer from. According to a report published in the New Scientist, some 300 healthy babies have been born in Europe in the last three years after being subjected to such screening. The number of embryos that were summarily destroyed in the process is anybodys guess. But pro–life people claim that it is ethically right to indulge in such a practice if it is for the babys good and not otherwise. But the biggest hypocrisy till date was that permission was granted to parents to use the technology to create a life–saving sibling when the parents suffered from a genetic disorder but were denied permission when the older sibling suffered from a genetic disease that came about through sporadic mutation that was not passed on by parents.Neither did the pro–life groups opposition that the procedure harms the embryo stand scrutiny as HFEA was finally convinced of its safety. "We could not possibly approve the procedure if the child concerned was going to be put through any pain and distress," said Dr. Vivienne Nathanson, head of ethics and policy at the British Medical Association (BMA). The British Medical Association staunchly supports the technique to save an older sibling. The very fact that it is permitted in embryos when the parents suffer from a genetic disorder themselves is proof enough. The green signal to pre–implantation genetic diagnosis comes with a catch though. It will be permitted only when the disease is very serious and life threatening, and when there is no other way to treat the child. `Designer babies chosen for eye colour, intelligence, skin texture or any other parental whim, a fear so often voiced by pro–life groups, should be stuff befitting an engrossing fiction rather than reality. Tough regulation is the solution.Q.The author would agree with none of the following, except thata)till date permission was only granted for creating a life saving sibling when the parents suffered from a genetic disorderb)till date permission was only granted for creating a life saving sibling when the genetic disease came about through sporadic mutationc)till date permission was granted for creating a life saving sibling, only when the disease involved was life threateningd)both(1) and (3)e)both (1) and (2)Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Directions: The passage below is followed by a question based on its content. Answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage.Parents in the U.K. with children suffering from some potentially fatal genetic disease can heave a sigh of relief. Thanks to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA), the last hurdle to creating babies specifically to save older siblings suffering from an incurable genetic disease has been cleared. The issue was mired in controversy with pro–life people opposing permission tooth and nail. But what makes the technology controversial in the first place? Pre–implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) allows the removal of a cell from an embryo created through in–vitro fertilization. The cell so removed is studied for any genetic disorders. This technique combined with tissue typing allows the parents to choose the embryo that has a perfect (tissue) match with the sibling suffering from the genetic disorder. Once convinced of a match, the embryo is implanted into the mothers womb and the mother allowed to proceed to full pregnancy. The stem cells are removed from the newborns umbilical cord at the time of birth and transplanted to the older sibling suffering from the disease. Once transplanted, the older siblings ailment is thus cured.But what makes the issue contentious is the destruction of all embryos that lack the match. Add to this the view held by the pro–life people that producing a baby with the express intention of using its stem cells to save an older sibling is commodification of life. Spare parts, transplant source, potential life savers are some of the labels that such babies get. To quote David King, Director of the pressure group Human Genetics Alert, "it is wrong to create a child simply as a means to an end, however good that end might be, because to do so turns the child into an object." The opposition stems from a basic tenet that pro–life people hold that any embryo destroyed wantonly is a person killed. In other words, embryo destroyed is a murder committed. If this is accepted as correct, the technique becomes morally and ethically wrong. But HFEA thought otherwise. In reality, couples choose to have babies for various compelling reasons — to save a marriage, to beget a baby of a particular sex, companionship for the older sibling, to name a few. Going in for more children in utter desperation to find perfect (tissue) match, is one of them. Science and technology have only helped such couples increase their chances of success.Even as the pro–life groups are up in arms, the double standards that were practiced until HFEA came out with this notification come out clearly. For instance, it was considered morally and ethically right to do pre–implantation genetic diagnosis and tissue typing to ensure that the embryo was free from a particular genetic disorder that its parents suffer from. According to a report published in the New Scientist, some 300 healthy babies have been born in Europe in the last three years after being subjected to such screening. The number of embryos that were summarily destroyed in the process is anybodys guess. But pro–life people claim that it is ethically right to indulge in such a practice if it is for the babys good and not otherwise. But the biggest hypocrisy till date was that permission was granted to parents to use the technology to create a life–saving sibling when the parents suffered from a genetic disorder but were denied permission when the older sibling suffered from a genetic disease that came about through sporadic mutation that was not passed on by parents.Neither did the pro–life groups opposition that the procedure harms the embryo stand scrutiny as HFEA was finally convinced of its safety. "We could not possibly approve the procedure if the child concerned was going to be put through any pain and distress," said Dr. Vivienne Nathanson, head of ethics and policy at the British Medical Association (BMA). The British Medical Association staunchly supports the technique to save an older sibling. The very fact that it is permitted in embryos when the parents suffer from a genetic disorder themselves is proof enough. The green signal to pre–implantation genetic diagnosis comes with a catch though. It will be permitted only when the disease is very serious and life threatening, and when there is no other way to treat the child. `Designer babies chosen for eye colour, intelligence, skin texture or any other parental whim, a fear so often voiced by pro–life groups, should be stuff befitting an engrossing fiction rather than reality. Tough regulation is the solution.Q.The author would agree with none of the following, except thata)till date permission was only granted for creating a life saving sibling when the parents suffered from a genetic disorderb)till date permission was only granted for creating a life saving sibling when the genetic disease came about through sporadic mutationc)till date permission was granted for creating a life saving sibling, only when the disease involved was life threateningd)both(1) and (3)e)both (1) and (2)Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CAT tests.