To take a quote from article: “In an interview in EMBO Reports in the fall of 2001, Dr Stefánsson was quoted as saying: ‘I think that the more knowledge we have, the more opportunity we have to make intelligent choices, and the better society will be. I am absolutely convinced of that.’” I’m not sure if this is utilitarianism gone mad, sincere arrogance, or both. Dr Stefánsson quite clearly needs the guidance of ‘people from universities’ to define for him, ethically, the correct interpretation of “we”, “intelligent choices” and “better” in this statement. (I refer to the quote: “Ethics was a scholarly discipline, but now we have people from universities telling other people what they should do, which I think is dangerous. That is something that society has to do”). Skúli Sigurdsson expresses a concern relating to the motivations of “vulnerable” elderly people who are taking part in the HSD. The knowledge that these people are given to help facilitate their decision quite clearly manipulates their emotional disposition toward such an idea. It’s all for the ‘greater-good’ of society, they are told. I find this entirely hypocritical. Ask yourself, what really ARE the advantages to this particular bank of knowledge? Is this ‘better society’ a more perfect society, where nobody suffers ill health? I am ‘absolutely convinced’ that this is the case. So what is to stop a company exploiting the information held in this database such that their ‘better society’ can also become more ‘intelligent’, and even, more ‘beautiful’. Personally I choose not to entertain this idea of a society based on a philosophical and ethical system of eugenics. And what happens when a couple knows they have a 50/50 chance of passing early-onset Alzheimers disease to their children? Until the ethics of pre-implantation diagnosis are properly applied to the law, we cannot afford to exploit this knowledge and the techniques that make this ‘intelligent decision’ possible. Just look at the recent case in British law of the couple requesting pre-implantation diagnosis in order to have a child that can become a bone-marrow donor to one of their existing children. Pro-Life organisations got involved in the court case and prevented them from being allowed to carry out the procedure within the law.