Women over 38 face both greater risk of chromosomal abnormalities and they have higher pregnancy risk in general, so they are the most likely candidate group for PGD testing (Sherbahn, 2013).
There are some drawbacks to PGD as well that need to be taken into consideration. While a common argument against the technique relates to moral hazard, that hazard originates from subsequent decisions and is not directly related to the PGD testing decision. However, Sherbahn (2013) notes that there are legitimate concerns about the use of this technique. In particular, the 3-day embryo biopsy technique is believed to traumatize the embryo, while there is evidence to suggest that other types of PGD testing do not place the embryo at additional risk.
Another negative aspect of PGD that must be taken into consideration is the risk of a false positive. It is known that mosaic embryos can self-repair, and this aspect of neonatal child development is not yet developed as a science. Thus, while a PGD test might detect an abnormality, that...
Additionally, there is also the risk of the false negative. At the current quality level of testing, it is understood that some babies will still be born with chromosomal abnormalities. Additionally, PGD testing is expensive, and therefore remains prohibitive for many patients.
Taken as a whole, PGD does offer benefits to some couples, but to others the benefits do not justify the risks and costs. In most cases, PGD should be treated as an optional treatment, and not recommended outright unless the mother has a specific risk factor that can be mitigated with the test.
Works Cited:
Morris, R. (2008). PGD does not cause birth defects or development problems. IVFI. Retrieved April 15, 2013 from http://www.ivf1.com/pgd-no-birth-defects/
Sherbahn, R. (2013). PGD and IVF -- pros and cons. Advanced Fertility Center of Chicago. Retrieved April 15, 2013 from http://www.advancedfertility.com/preimplantation_genetic_diagnosis.htm
