I understand that millions of fertilized eggs do not manage to implant in the uterus in humans and thus are discarded in menstruation. The coroner's office must receive all such material from women and search them for dead "people" to give them a decent burial.

Roy Lent, Escazu, Costa Rica

And every time a man masturbates, millions of potential people are dying. Should there be an outcry for all of them too?

Sam, NYC,

Gattaca anyone?

kellis, Lumps,

If a tree falls in the forest and nobody hears it, does it make a noise?

Susan, Paramus, USA

Each of those embryos had the potential to become a person. Whichever person that was was brought to the very beginning stages of development--then snuffed out, deemed inadequate.

Who is to say that the gene for breast cancer doesn't also accompany some good? Humans are inadequate to answer.

James , Freehold, NJ, USA

Aabsolutely delighted to hear about this pioneer medical approach - as a committed Christian I believe God gives individuals talents and that using those talents in such a positive manner is a great blessing and service to humanity.

meidre cleminson, brentwood, essex

There's too many people in the world anyway. Let's make fewer of them, and have the ones that come out be healthier and happier. I wish we could screen for pro-lifers when they were still in the womb and abort em before it's too late!

blr, nyc, usa

Comeon. IVF was invented in Britain & has resulted in hundreds of thousands of happy families; Louise Brown is 30! In each one of these the clinic has "selected" which embryo to transfer to the womb. Now we have technology that can select for a bad cancer, and "Hitler has won". Get real.

Sue, Philadelphia, USA

Someone made the comment that the couple should just adopt to keep from passing the gene along. So when they are handed a big book of children, do they just pick the first one on the page? Because if they don't, they are "passing over" many children who could have been chosen. no baby was killed.

Frankie Dee, Pinson, USA

The mom says if she had a daughter who developed breast cancer, she couldn't look her in the eye knowing she didn't "try to prevent" the illness. Well, she won't have to worry about looking any of her children who had breast cncer in the eye; she killed the ones with the statistical chance!!!

Marty E, Robinson, TX

Just think with gene screening soon there will be no gay, lesbian, thansgender, mentally disabled, phyically disabled, black, white, hispanic, albino, no geeks, nerds, jocks, and we will all look like Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie. And then die at 20 before we get ugly...wait wasn't that a movie.

Chris, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

Can we start screening out all of the undesireable traits? Those with a risk of cancer, of disease, of being retarded, of being ugly, of being physically unfit, of bad skin color, bad eye color, bad hair, wrong political leanings, wrong religious leanings...

Can we let the government choose?

Noah, Seattle, USA

Being Gay or having red hair is not life threatening. And neither is a "patented" disease like fibromyalgia or depression. We need the restrictions in place on selection. And fast.

Joran, St. Petersburg, FL, USA

If using medicine to better the lives of others is 'playing god' may you never take another asprin or cough drop when ill, and may you never seek medical help if you are in need of it or may even die. I thought it was the quality of life that mattered, not the quantity.

Lina, Jacksonville, FL, USA

If I were to say that I "destroyed" an eagles egg, there would be no doubt that it ceased to be living. It was killed, despite my words, and PETA would have a fit.

Science says these embryos are living creatures, and when not implanted, cease to live. She is the mother of 11, many who are dead.

Christina, Virginia,

Quote: "If a woman who had her breasts removed had her mother decide to do the selection had it been available, the woman would not be here.
Dawn , Kansas, USA"

So WHAT?? Another woman would be here in her place-these parents are pregnant with 2 babies right now!
We must be able to choose.

Anna, Omaha, Nebraska, USA

You can't really say that HE made the gene, but rather the gene came about as a result of events.

At any rate - at least science is concentrating on something I love.

J, River City, Canada

Trev Willock said:
"To all the Bible Thumpers who object to this.

"Consider this, do you not think God in his Infinite Wisdom, might have given these specialists the knowledge to correct a faulty
Gene that HE made."

No "faulty" gene was created. It doesn't need to be "fixed."

D.E. Thomas, Concord, CA, USA

It will be a sin in the future to refuse the option to screen and not offer your child the opportunity to live without hereditary disease. I feel sorry for Americans little do they realize the wonderful opportunities of Universal Health Care.

David Vida, Los Angeles, California

Good news indeed. And to the "oh you murderers" fraternity, how many kids do you expect these poor people to have? Thousands? One for each available egg? They ARE having a child, why not give it a leg up and reduce the risk of watching it suffer later.

Warren, Sydney, Australia

The ones that got thrown out had a somewhat high risk of developing cancer, which may have killed them, so lets....just kill them right now? That makes sense. If you're that worried about proliferating the gene, just adopt a baby.

Doug, Riverside, CA,

To all the Bible Thumpers who object to this.

Consider this, do you not think God in his Infinite Wisdom, might

have given these specialists the knowledge to correct a faulty

Gene that HE made.

Trev Willock, MAPLE RIDGE , CANADA

I'll be cynical. But for 99+% , it would be financially impossible to afford either the medical expence for the gene testing or the IVF proceedure.

This being a speciality, it would be beyond the scope the British people could sustain in the Socialized Medicine. It's done because it can be.

Ian Jay Germaine, Sugar Land, Texas, USA

Unlike every other types of cells, embryos are distinct human beings in that they have the potential to go full term and be born. It's not just a 'clump of cells'. If you implant any other type of 'clump of cells' it won't grow to be a full baby in 9 months so please stop with the lame arguments

Stan Giavante, Boston, MA, USA

Hitler has won... Eugenics are the order of the day... Call it what you will folks, murder of the unborn is accepted as a norm. We are done as a world.

Kevin, Henley,

That this woman has the right to choose to screen her embryos is what we should celebrate. Being able to choose this option is a miracle in itself. It's no one's business but hers and her husband's although it seems that too many other people are appallingly intent on making it theirs.

Ryan, Miami, USA

I guess the 42 years I lived before I had breast cancer, the 7 years after breast cancer and the rest of my life that I have yet to live should never have happened. According to this couple me, my 6 children and our future generation should have been distroyed in lab. Let God be God, PLEASE!

vera, leesburg,

They are not children. They are multi-cell embryos which have not been implanted. Even if they were implanted, they may never live. Pregnancy does not equal live healthy children.

stephanie, montpelier, U.S.

This is frighteningly similar to the practice of exposure, used in ancient societies to get rid of "flawed", weak, or simply non-male offspring. This bally-hooed breakthrough leads us down a slippery philisophical slope. What's is the next condition that will need to be medically "selected" for???

Bob Reed, Long Beach, NY, USA

This is just a little strange to me. If the parents of the mother had gone through with this procedure the now pregnant wife wouldn't have had a husband. Do the family members who have the cancer prefer not existing over existing with breast cancer?

Tim, Baltimore, USA

It would be great to eliminate the chance of anyone getting cancer. However, let's take this a bit further and say a gay gene is found and a simple genetic test is developed.

Charles, Columbia, SC, USA

My 15 yr old Daughter has Episodic Ataxia 2, a rare inherited genetic disease. She, too, has a 50% chance of passing it on, we found the mutation...THIS is great news!

Penny, ottawa, canada

I respect everyone's opinion whether I agree with it or not. Here's mine: If genetic " manipulation " can save a future life, go for it. Some feel that sorting embryos for this equals murder,but I don't. Look at the possible benefits- eradication of disease passing faulty genes. I think it's great.

Earl, Louisville, USA

I wonder how many of the people calling a 3-day clump of cells a 'baby' have been hit by any of the horrible diseases that these techniques can help with. Going through a procedure like this is not something taken lightly. To condemn patients and doctors wanting to create a better life is ridiculous

Elle, Surrey,

If a woman who had her breasts removed had her mother decide to do the selection had it been available, the woman would not be here.

Dawn , Kansas, USA

My husband & I underwent PGD in the US in 2003 for BRCA1. I have lost my mother and two aunts to this dreadful disease. There is a lab in Michigan that had done over 30 PGD families for BRCA1 way back then. Our daughter is healthy and we feel relieved! Thank God for this wonderful technology.

Sue, Philadelphia, USA

Genes have to be 'switched on' and do not irrevocably lead to disease. People who develop cancer do so largely because of unexpressed creativity in their lives, and in the case of breast cancer, over -nurturing of others with self-neglect. This child's inherent creativity has now been 'removed'.

J.E.Poole, Romsey, UK

There are numerous diseases where they could be on the way to being eliminated if responsible families were to take this approach. When there are identifiable genes which result in horrific, destructive diseases, it would be well worth the cost for these families, if they are capable of doing so.

Brenda , Houston , USA

The average woman produces about 300 embryos in her lifetime, to equate a pinhead sized embryo with a human life can only be done by someone using the same amount of gray matter. What these idiotic bible thumpers are saying is that a woman who chooses not to have children is a mass murderer.

Ciccio, TORONTO, Canada

I had my breasts removed when my son was 8 months old after testing positive. My chance of developing breast cancer like the other women in my family was judged to be over 85%. Had there been a test and embryo selection, it would have been an easy decision for me. Do it 100%

Terri Hurley, Potomac,

Moral issues always rear their head when cutting- edge scientific breakthroughs happen- especially when it deals with human embryos. A good example of this is stem cell research. I say it saves lives, others say: " This is how you play God." Hats off to this brave couple for protecting the child.

Earl, Louisville, USA

People say "thank God I wasn't screened" believe their soul wouldn't have been in whichever embryo anyway. You don't know that. If my daughter had gene therapy someday, and it changed her code, she'd still be "her". We are not merely our genes. You can't be allowed to make others live your religion.

Julie Cochrane, Atlanta, Georgia, US

Genetic "manipulation" of the human genome is inevitable. Ultimately, we need more knowledge of the genome. These early cases run the risk of inappropriately excluding or selecting genes that will reduce the variability needed for the survival as conditions change. Conditions we can't be foresee.

Dan Kralis, Atlanta, USA

The neg response people are so brave with your faceless remarks. Wait till it hits you at home Then you won't be spouting off against anyone else who doesn't believe exactly what you do 100%. And read the facts. the embryo was NOT ELIMINATED in the womb. I say-good for u for having the strength.

Dee, ABQ, USA

Such a fascinating issue! But how could anyone possibly think it's as clear-cut as some of the posters here? With every pregnancy, there are ten million sperm that do not fertilize the egg, meaning ten million possible unborn children...

Craig, Fayetteville, NC, USA

...the idea that eleven unimplanted embryos is the same as eleven living human beings is a bit absurd. We can freeze an embryo for storage; we can't do that with a baby! But I don't see how you couldn't think it's chilling to choose one potential baby over another for any reason. Not an easy issue.

Craig, Fayetteville, NC, USA

Reading some of the comments from some of my fellow "Americans" is embarrassing.
Jesus Christ On A Pickle... Take religion out of this. If your child is farsighted you have him/her fitted with glasses, right?
If you have an 50-80 percent chance of handing down something bad - you would change it!

Lisa Cortney, Vancouver, USA

Excellent news..why not use the knowledge we now have to improve the chances of our children to live a healthier life? Stop whining about these so-called "moral" issues and grow up a little. Reducing the chance of at least some diseases, will cost society less than treating horrible illnesses.

Gene, Hartford, USA

My husband's sister died at age of 33 from breast cancer, his mother's first cancer was in her 20's. Every female on that side of the family has died too young from this cancer. This is a tremendous advance for families with this gene, who wish to have children but not carry on this deadly legacy

Cheri, Florida,

There is nothing wrong with it. Many embryos in nature do not make it, that's reality. There is selective breeding in nature.

There is nothing wrong with selecting the healthiest embryos for transfer in an IVF. The mother is simply trying to spare her child a horrible disease later in life

Sara, Lewisville, USA

If you had time to rescue either one 12-month baby, or 15 embryos from a fire, which would you pick? If embryos are people, one must save 15 lives over 1... yet anyone who says they'd let the 12-month-old burn alive to save the embryos is obviously mad! This noble couple rightly chose the baby.

Liz, London,

Those questioning her motives probably do not have the same odds of their children having breast cancer. A friend just confided a daughter with cancer. Not breast cancer but just as frightening. And who would not eliminate the chance of their children getting cancer if they had the opportunity?

Robert N. Horey, Amherst Oh, USA

First, the implication that only females get breast cancer shows complete ignorance . . . better flush all those baby boy zygotes too! And second, I hope her parents are able to control all the environmental factors that cause breast cancer, including smoking, drinking, and excessive hormone use.

Dee, Seattle,

This is truly scary. Next, comes soylent green. Why let your elderly live? They're only suffering from a decrepit state. Let's be humane and send them off...Cancer has been a very real problem in my family and I'm still against this type of selective breeding. Geez the west is messed up.

Cody, San Francisco, USA

Anyone seen Gattica

Mary, Centreville,

Did they kill their eleven other children? Breast Cancer is not the only disease women can get. Her surviving daughter could be in an accident or get a brain tumor at seven. Will they wish her dead if she gets another disease or is in an accident not meeting their standards of perfection?

.

Isabelle, Long Beach, NY, USA

It is a slippery slope. Are we saying that people who get breast cancer are better off dead? What else are we willing to screen for?

Barb, Chardon,

Saying one is judgmental b/c of a simple opinion about "A" topic seems rather judgmental in & of itself. Further to affix a label to a country filled with 300 million people & say it is wrong to want to approach issues with prudence is essentially turning our backs on all great works of philosophers

Cerid, Hudson, USA

the anonimity and ease of reply that the Internet provides, seems to give people the impression that they are all-powerful, always right, somehow superior - and that this sensible British woman cares what a cart-load of judgmental Americans think of her no-doubt carefully considered decision.

Julia, Nottingham, UK

As a young woman who developed breast cancer, I know the awful effects of having both breasts removed emotionally + phsycologically. Dont stop preventative research because its said that we might select babies with certain hair colours. Hair colour wont kill you or leave you wanting to kill yourself

Lorna L, Oxford, UK

hang on a mo...most of you are missing an opportunity.

better flip over and read 'Katy the bus baby is a mother’s joy' because there is loads of space left there for you to complain about unused embryos, unnatural births, unholy whatevers etc. be quick and you might even be first to judge...

Julia, Nottingham, UK

In a world that is carpeted with people, at least everywhere that anyone wants to live, and is running out of everything, maybe a more rational solution for this couple would have been to not have children at all.

Will Shank, Toronto, Canada

They could have adopted or chosen not to have children and there would have been no ethical question.

JustFacts, Lapel,

Wow, I had no idea that Americans were so irrational. Sperm is wasted every day, so are eggs. We select our mates on their genetic traits (beauty and intelligence) The body spontaneously aborts genetically inviable fetuses readily. Now we are capable of doing it even better. We rock!

Steve, Tampa, USA

So, at least seven lives were destroyed to produce one child who won't develop hereditary breast cancer (but of course might not have anyway, even if born with the BRCA-1 gene). Let's hope this child grows up produces the new lineage expected of her ... no less and she will be a 'failure'. Sad.

Belinda, London,

Those who think this is wonderful are out of their mind. Lets just be honest here. The word screening means "Death" to the unborn. We wonder why the west i.e. the USA and Europe are dying and will be superceded by the easy in not so many years.

MikeK, Liverpool, UK

So you're wishing a horrible disease such as cancer upon a child in the name of morality, Luke? How very charming.

M. R., Stockport,

The article does help to illustrate particularly how gruesome the practice of IVF can be, though unfortunately doesn't directly touch on the obvious, legitimate concerns around creating a litter of living human embryos in the lab (11 in this case) and eugenically weeding out the less desirable.

Brian Byrne, Alexandria, USA

Tis better to have lived and lost than never lived at all....

Randyaz, Globe, AZ, USA

I am a breast cancer survivor. Thank goodness my mother wasn't able to pre-screen me back in 1944. My mom also had breast cancer but that's not what she died of at age 76. Of our nine grandchildren, two are adopted. We're grateful they weren't screened out.

Donna, New York

Donna L. Marek, Ogdensburg,NY, USA

Isn't it great that we now have the right to choose which babies deserve to live and which don't. I mean, wouldn't the world be just better off if people diseased today had never existed. Because that's all that matters about those people. Those WEAK people, do they deserve to live?

Luke, Los Angeles, USA

Of course your kids with the gene are valued. Your ones without would've been too if they could've been screened & spared.
This couple were never going to have 11 children - the number nurtured to adulthood will be the same, just with better odds of survival.
Otherwise it's Every Sperm Is Sacred!

Alex West, Warwickshire,

superb idea remove cancer from the gene pool makes me proud to be British!, yet the bible bashers are still so blind they cannot see. Sad people indeed.

Nigel Carron, Peterhead, Scotland

This is wonderful news. The Israeli baby born to parents carrying this awful gene was recently born healthy.

caz, Jerusalem,

Would the people that are decrying the use of this technique condemn the use of IVF treatment in general as embryos are destroyed during that process? How can such a "Christian" Nation (all comments seem to emanate from USA) be so happy to condemn unborn to a preventable early death.

Richard, Bucks, UK

John- you need to work on your maths it's 7 - (2 frozen for future use.)

Gareth Horry, dubai,

This raises interesting and important ethics questions. I am still torn about genetic selection or manipulation of embryos . We all want the best for our children, but where does it stop; hair color, height, intellegence? We can genetically select for numerous traits, but should we?

Jeff, Seattle,

How different is a 3 day embryo in humanity than a 360 day old embryo? You people have lost your minds. Breast cancer is horrible, but people are working on a cure. This is selfishness masquerading as selflessness. Even if there is no cure,you have no right to ''cultivate'' life to destroy it

Sharon E, nyc, usa

My mother had the BrCa1 gene, didn't get breast cancer, had a hysterectomy, and lived to 84 years of age. Several of her cousins without the gene died in their 50's and 60's from unrelated diseases.

R Baker, Cherry Hill, USA

Let's see..... first there were 11 children. She killed six, then implated 5. She'll probably kill off four more before having 1 of her 11 children live.

That sure is "life saving."

Mike Gorman, Bowie, United States

This is a wonderful breakthrough! I advise all those who are morally offended by the idea NOT to have the procedure. Eliminating a disease-causing gene having no benefits for recessive carriers is just good sense. I predict this will be standard practice in a decade.

Vivian Viverito, Atlanta, GA USA

Where does it stop? My mother had stage 3 breast cancer when I was in junior high and many of my relatives have died of cancer. I don't think many people can say that they don't know someone affected by cancer. But, when will we start choosing hair color? or sexuality? or body type? I worry.

Rob Fojtik, Prague, Czech Republic

Yay for designer babies, but why stop with cancer? Parents should further screen out other undesirable traits. Do autistic kids deserve to live, let's erase them from existence. Hell, who needs a mundane brown eyed child, let's strive for blue. Why tolerate differences when you can remove them.

Luke, Los Angeles, USA

Having buried a father from melanoma, a mother and sister from lung cancer and been treated for melanoma,I totally agree with any screening that can be done to prevent early deaths. Altzheimers also runs in my family. Would I protect my children invitro? Hell yes!!!

Fiona, Wellington, new zealand

Kory - Only someone who has never had, or never been close to anyone else with this terrible disease could write that. I hope you never have to find out how current treatments for breast cancer can leave you permantly disfigured and disabled, good prognosis or otherwise.

Sarah, Carcassonne, France

This is a very important evolution of humanity. The possibility of choose the best for your babies. And give them a better and a healther life, nothing more.

Luiz Ricardo, São Paulo, Brasil

Good for this mother for sparing her daughter the nightmare of breast cancer. I've lost friends to this disease and another had her lung so damaged from radiation that she is on oxygen now.

MG Raftery, san diego, USA

Absolutely disgusting. To throw away babies that have an undesired gene is ridiculous. You know people survive breast cancer everyday. So a person with breast cancer should never have been born??? You people make me sick.

Kory, Alexandria, USA

1. Embryo with genetic predispostion never placed in utero;
2. No elimination of 'genetically unhealthy' foetus;
3. Screening for other conditions such as Downs offered as routine for some mothers resulting in concomittant terminations;
4. No more space left to argue further

Nina, Cas En Bas, St Luci

This is an incredible gift to the future generations of this family. Taking charge of your own genome is both sound and rational, and the wave of the future. The "destroying embyros" argument is ludicrous - if you've ever seen a 3-day embyro, you'd realize the fuss is about nothing.

Andrew, West Virginia, USA

My math says 9 embrios (read babbies) were disposed of.

John Adams, La Habra, USA

Pre-implantation screening results in the deaths of viable embryos.

This offends my sensibilities; yet even worse would be some technique which would alter the DNA, while potentially scrambling the so-called genetic switches - thereby introducing noise into the epigenetics of future generations.

Doug Brenner, Minneapolis, USA

I carry BRACA2 ...I have two sons and two daughters, do they carry the gene? I do not know ...but it would not change each of their individual specialness and love I have for them. My sister just recently discovered she has pancreatic cancer she is also BRACA@....I have cherished my 41 yrs with her

BonnieRyan, Baldwin, USA

where will this type of thinking end? when we only procreate for the "fittest of the fit"? haven't we already tried that? cancer is horrible, we will all die of SOMETHING.Why not just stop conceiving babies NOW then becasue, hey, they might die from something bad in their lifetime...

Laura Buck, OH,

Sounds like a wonderful result but please find a way to do some post-conception splicing rather than play fast and loose with human embryos. Opening the process to moral debate is a loser. Make it clean morally and then your path will be straight

Steve, Knotts Island, USA

The frightening implacations of eliminating a child in the womb that may get breast cancer.
Dr. Mengele lives.

Jo, Little Meadows, PA, U S of A