IVF Designer Babies: Fair, Ethical, or Too Far?

IVF Designer Babies:  Fair, Ethical, or Too Far?

IVF has given hope to families facing infertility, transforming what once felt impossible into a path toward parenthood. In Australia, parents can test embryos for serious medical conditions, helping prevent life-limiting diseases. But when it comes to non-medical traits—eye colour, hair colour, height, build, or other physical features—the rules are far stricter.  But should they be?

Currently, parents using their own eggs and sperm have no choice other than medically necessary decisions.   Meanwhile, parents using donor eggs or sperm already make value-based decisions—considering appearance, education, family medical history, and social background when selecting their donor.

Both groups are already undergoing IVF with its emotional, physical, and financial challenges. So, why shouldn’t they both be allowed to choose the traits for their child, particularly when these decisions can support emotional connection, health considerations, and family cohesion?

This debate raises important questions about fairness, ethics, and practical consequences.

1. Emotional Connection and Family Cohesion

IVF is exhausting—physically, emotionally, and financially. Repeated cycles, injections, scans, failed transfers, and heartbreak leave parents yearning for some measure of control. Allowing limited non-medical trait selection could provide emotional relief and help strengthen the bond between parents and child.

Example: A mother might hope for a child with hair or eye colour resembling her partner rather than herself, especially if she already has children who resemble her. This small choice could foster a stronger sense of family identity and shared connection.

Even minor selections like this can give parents a sense of involvement, reassurance, and control during an otherwise unpredictable and emotionally draining journey.

2. Continuity With Donor Selection

Parents using donor eggs or sperm already make considered choices about their child’s traits, including physical appearance, medical history, and even educational or social background.

Allowing couples to select traits when using their own embryos can be viewed as a natural extension of this process.

Example: If parents can select a donor based on specific physical traits, why shouldn’t those using their own biological material have the same option? After all, both scenarios require the same emotional, physical, and financial investment.

3. Health-Adjacent Considerations

Even traits considered “non-medical” can intersect with long-term health. Parents may wish to select embryos less likely to inherit tendencies toward obesity, frailty, or other physical limitations.

Examples:

1. Family history of obesity: Parents might hope for a naturally leaner build—not out of vanity, but to reduce potential health struggles and support long-term wellbeing.

2. Physical stamina or athleticism: Parents with a history of heart or joint issues may prioritise embryos with traits suggesting stronger physical resilience.

3. Bone structure or height: Parents concerned about frailty or musculoskeletal conditions may hope for traits that offer a sturdier frame, potentially helping the child avoid complications later in life.

Reflection: While lifestyle and environment remain critical, small genetic considerations like these could provide meaningful advantages for health and quality of life.

4. Visual Connection for Non-Biological Parents

For parents using donor eggs or sperm, selecting certain traits can create a visual connection, helping parents feel included in the child’s appearance.

Example: A mother using a donor egg might choose traits such as hair or eye colour similar to her own, fostering emotional closeness. A father using donor sperm may hope for subtle features reflecting him.

Even minor resemblance can strengthen attachment when no genetic link exists.

5. Ethical and Societal Considerations

Critics warn that selecting traits beyond medical necessity risks “playing God” and could reinforce societal biases about appearance, ability, or other valued traits.

Where is the line drawn? Today it might be hair or eye colour; tomorrow it could expand to height, build, athletic ability, or even facial features. Once a precedent is set, deciding which traits are acceptable to select becomes increasingly complex.

Could social pressure influence choices? Absolutely. Parents may feel compelled to pick traits seen as socially desirable, even if they personally don’t prioritize them. Over time, small selections could subtly reinforce cultural norms and stereotypes, affecting how society views “ideal” children.

Examples of potential pressures or consequences:

• Choosing a leaner build or taller height because society values certain body types.

• Preferring lighter skin, hair, or eye colour in cultures where these are seen as more desirable.

• Selecting athletic ability or physical strength due to expectations of competitiveness or success.

• Opting for certain facial features that align with prevailing beauty standards.

• Favoring intellectual or educational predispositions that align with social expectations, rather than parental values.

Even seemingly minor choices could have ripple effects over generations, subtly shaping cultural perceptions of appearance, ability, and worth.

Reflection: While parents naturally want the best for their children, ethical and societal implications must be carefully considered to avoid creating unintended pressures or inequities.

6. Practical and Systemic Consequences

Allowing non-medical trait selection more broadly for IVF patients raises important questions about fairness and system capacity.

Consider fertile couples: Should they also be given these option?  And if so, demand on the system could rise sharply. This might lengthen waitlists and delay treatment for couples who genuinely need IVF due to infertility.

The healthcare system could face significant strain, as elective choices compete with medically necessary treatments, creating difficult ethical and practical dilemmas.

7. Psychological Considerations for Children

Children may struggle with knowing certain traits were chosen. Parents would need to navigate this carefully, ensuring children understand they are loved unconditionally, regardless of appearance.

Conclusion

At the heart of this debate is a simple truth: parents want the best for their children.

But “best” can mean different things—emotional connection, practical health, or even small physical traits. Allowing trait selection in IVF may offer comfort and control, but it also forces us to confront questions about fairness, societal pressures, and the limits of medical intervention.

There are no easy answers, only careful consideration of what it means to balance parental hope, ethical responsibility, and the unpredictable, beautiful reality of bringing a child into the world.

Because a healthy baby is the desired final result.  And any deviation from this risks placing personal preferences above medical necessity.

 ❤️ Linda