The Case Against Perfection: Ethics in the Age of Genetic Engineering

Sandel is staunchly opposed to parents genetically modifying their children because “[t]o appreciate children as gifts is to accept them as they come” (45) instead of shaping them to fit a parent’s vision. Parents should practice an “openness to the unbidden” (45) when it comes to their children.

This is not an issue of stripping a child of autonomy, but of parental hubris. It is acceptable for parents to use medical interventions to cure their children of disease—doing so is an essential part of their duty of care—but curative medicine is not enhancement. The whole medical project aims to heal people and restore normal function. Some people argue that parents have a moral obligation to genetically enhance their children to give them the best odds in life. Such a belief frames health as something that can and therefore must be maximized.

By caring for their children, parents focus on giving their children the best care to suit their particular needs. That care, including curative medicine, prioritizes the child as an individual instead of foregrounding the parent’s wishes. Genetic enhancements, in Sandel’s view, are antithetical to the ideal of unconditional love. Paraphrasing theologian William F. May, Sandel explains the difference between “accepting love and transforming love” (49).