The late Dr. Yury Verlinsky, a scientist "who developed a technology that allows a search-and-destroy mission on human embryos" was heralded by the New York Times recently as a man who helped childless patients conceive healthy babies.
Thus argued Dr. Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, on his August 7 radio program. The former Townhall.com columnist was reacting to a July 22 New York Times obituary entitled "Yury Verlinsky, Expert in Embryonic Screening, Is Dead at 65."
"What I want to note... is not so much the man and what he did, but the way the New York Times explains this," Mohler told his audience, adding:
Story Continues Below Ad ↓Repeatedly in this article, it says that he helped patients conceive healthy babies. Folks, what he helped to do is to eliminate embryos that were considered sub-standard. Not one embryo was therapeutically helped to be more healthy. Only embryos that were considered unacceptable were destroyed.
I think it is very illuminating to see how the media treats [sic] this. I think the New York Times writes an obituary about a scientist like this, and describes his work simply in terms of helping patients conceive healthy babies.
We're right in George Orwell's territory. We're here missing the obvious.
This is a man who developed a technology that allows a search-and-destroy mission on human embryos.
Indeed, New York Times staffer Dennis Hevesi, noted that Verlinksy "was one of the first scientists to develop techniques to detect genetic disorders in embryos" and "helped make that screening available to parents around the world."
"Dr. Verlinsky, who fled the Soviet Union in 1979 after being barred from pursuing his research there, was an early practitioner of what is called pre-implantation genetic diagnosis, or P.G.D.," Hevesi added.
Of course, that diagnostic screening involves the subsequent destruction of the embryos found to contain these genetic disorders. What's more, some of these genetic concerns were not likely to present problems at birth or early childhood, but much later in life.
Yet Hevesi failed to note that ethical concern, even as he pointed out how some medical ethicists objected to Verlinsky's work seven years ago helping a woman likely to contract early-onset Alzheimer's to bear a child via in-vitro fertilization (emphasis mine):
In 2002, Dr. Verlinsky supervised the genetic testing of a 30-year-old woman who was likely to develop a rare form of Alzheimer’s disease before she turned 40. Her baby was spared that fate because she had been screened as an embryo before being implanted in the womb.
The case was a medical milestone, the first use of genetic testing to prevent an early onset form of Alzheimer’s. But some ethicists found it disturbing because the mother would probably become unable to take care of her daughter, who would witness her deterioration and death.
Dr. Verlinsky said he had no qualms about helping the woman. “It’s totally up to the patient,” he said, pointing out that many children are brought up by single parents and that the couple had considered the decision for months.
Far from noting criticism from pro-life medical ethicists, Hevesi went on to quote Dr. Andrew La Barbera of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine who praised the late Verlinsky as having been "a giant in the field because he transformed P.G.D. into a routine procedure that has enabled innumerable couples to conceive children free of genetic disease" and who "made it available to clinics around the world."
Hevesi added to the praise in his concluding paragraphs (emphasis mine):
Soon after receiving his Ph.D., Dr. Verlinsky began work in a [Soviet] government clinic. His research proposals were rejected by a committee. The Verlinskys emigrated to the United States in 1979, a fortunate move for reproductive technology.
Dr. Jamie Grifo, the program director at the New York University Fertility Center, said, “If it wasn’t for Yury, who knows how far this field would have come?”
—Ken Shepherd is Managing Editor of NewsBusters




















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
The New York Times
August 10, 2009 - 11:35 ET by GeneralAlThe New York Times obviously admires Adolph Hitler! Heres the real Nazis in America! Thank you, Dr. Mohler for putting the New York Grimes in its place! Nontheless, what would you expect from a newspaper that has a 100% rating for being on the wrong side!
"Her baby was spared that
August 10, 2009 - 11:41 ET by dervish"Her baby was spared that fate because she had been screened as an embryo before being implanted in the womb."
Actually what that means is that her baby was spared that fate because, had she had the gene for the disease, she would have been killed at the embryo stage. But it does sound nicer and more miraculous the other way.
Let me understand this correctly
August 10, 2009 - 13:31 ET by KC MulvilleOk, I can imagine the mother's anguish, in this case, not to have her child condemned to the same fate she is. I think it raises some extreme self-esteem issues, but they're all understandable. I feel bad for the mother.
But what's to stop this same technique from designer babies? Legally, for instance. What's the legal theory that prevents you from selecting certain genes, for medical reasons or not? What's to stop a mother from suing a gene technician for allowing her to bear a child who was genetically prone to ... drug addiction? ... sexual promiscuity? ... insufficient IQ?
Is that scenario unlikely? Sure. But someone explain the legal theory (or moral theory, for that matter) that guarantees it won't happen? And if the theory doesn't prevent it, our experience is that sooner or later, some shark lawyer is going to exploit it.
Oh I see...it's okay to...
August 10, 2009 - 12:12 ET by Guy Arthur ThomasOh I see...it's okay to freeze an embryo, just not destroy it. Hey people, did you hear that? Those that oppose destroying embryos because it is murder say it's okay to "freeze" that same person without their consent because, after all, what's the harm in freezing a person without their consent so long as you don't murder them!?
Sorry, but the inconsistency of those who oppose abortion based on the embryo being equal to that of any person outside the womb while condoning either through ignorance or committed silence the freezing of these same embryos is ludicrous.
Either embryos are equal to people outside the womb and should neither be frozen nor destroyed because they have consented to neither condition or they are the beginnings of human biological life that have a perceivably differentiated status.
And this is NOT to inidcate my position on the matter, just the selective moralism practiced by some.
(I'll be looking for Mohler's article on the outrage of freezing embryos without their consent some time soon).
Reality is the good friend of the strong and perception is the cruel master of the weak.
Next Please!
Where...
August 10, 2009 - 12:32 ET by dervish...did anyone say that?
Pro-abortion
August 10, 2009 - 13:10 ET by iveseenitallPro-abortionists will use any argument to support the anti-life movement. What they can't get around are the numbers of babies aborted before Roe vs. Wade as opposed to the numbers after that. Millions of children have died for the convenience, not the health, of the mother. Wasn't it a guy named Barry who said he wouldn't want his children "punished" by having a baby? Sad.
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"
I was reading through this
August 10, 2009 - 13:15 ET by black47211I was reading through this section and it hit me: Shouldn't the killing of Americans by Americans be illegal? If the argument is taken from the religious arena, why can't we look at it for what it is: Americans killing Americans.
Oh, wait, that's right...the SCOTUS said that a fetus isn't really a human, much less an American. My mistake. What was I thinking?
~Obviously not much,
August 10, 2009 - 13:30 ET by choselife3xDonald. Excuse me, dborshjr68/CTPatriot/pelicanmarsh/MORON.
Dissent: It's not just for liberals anymore.-kudzupolitics, USA Today
Only one abortion per person please.
August 10, 2009 - 13:11 ET by Zamora1I am an advocate of tieing the tubes of any woman that want's an abortion, fine you get one and while we are down there... Oh and frankly if the BABY's Daddy is ok with it snip snip. Neither of you need kids.
Gov't "healthcare"
August 10, 2009 - 13:36 ET by iveseenitallIn my opinion, abortion is high on the list of reasons for never having a government heathcare system. If not this time, some time in the future you will be giving your taxes to pay for abortions. The fascists will sneak it in there, one way or another. Can euthanasia be far behind? Wasn't it Tom Daschle, a "liberal", who suggested a while ago that it is your "duty" to die? I guess they want "heathcare" because there are so many "sickolas", like them, out there. Sad.
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"
Pre-implantation screening
August 10, 2009 - 13:42 ET by mamabearPre-implantation screening brings up serious ethical issues.
However, this take seems to imply that the technique causes more embryos to be discarded than would be otherwise, and I don't think that's true. In order to be successful, IVF involves creating as many embryos as you can, letting them grow to a certian stage to see which ones survive, then scoring the best ones on growth rate and healthiness. A couple get implanted, the rest get discarded. Embryos considered unacceptable for gross reasons are always discarded in this process. Dr. Verlinsky's techniques just change which ones get disqualified.
So really, it's not that different if you are just using genetic screening to better judge the viability of embryos that you used to judge under a microscope. But it's a whole different kettle of fish once people start picking traits that they want their babies to have or not have.
~Here's the problem
August 10, 2009 - 13:43 ET by choselife3xWith this statement....
But some ethicists found it disturbing because the mother would
probably become unable to take care of her daughter, who would witness
her deterioration and death.
First of all, there are no guarantees in life. Those of us who outlive our parents will all watch them 'deteriorate and die' eventually. The woman may or may not develop the disease, she may or may not die in a car accident, she may or may not stay married to her husband, she may die early of a totally unrelated disease, she may live to be a hundred! Are they saying that she shouldn't have a child because his/her life may be less than perfect?! May involve suffering? That's just called LIFE. What kind of a bubble do these people live in?
Second of all, who makes these people God? Will they be refusing fertility treatment to people with diabetes next? How about people with a family history of cancer? Emphysema? Heart disease? Astigmatism?
Dissent: It's not just for liberals anymore.-kudzupolitics, USA Today
and next up: version 2.0
August 10, 2009 - 13:44 ET by UndercoverConservative2.0 removes "undesirables" *after* birth. Mengele would be proud..tho I find myself wondering, since the article states he started the work in Russia (the got kicked out?!) if any of this was based on or inspired by data captured from Nazi labs after WWII...
WWW.GS2AC.COM. 2nd Amendment Grass Roots Action in the Bay Area, CA. We're not all "Breakfast Cereal" folks here! :)
waitasecond-this example wasn't even about the baby..
August 10, 2009 - 13:50 ET by UndercoverConservativebut about the *mother*! They had 'ethical issues" because they were worried about the already-born *mother's* genetic future!
"But some ethicists found it disturbing because the mother would
probably become unable to take care of her daughter, who would witness
her deterioration and death."
Is that the future? Prenantal care only allowed if the *parents* meet the "standards"? Someone deciding the potential for disease that will make you "unable" to care for your kids or cause them to watch you "deteriorate" is enough to say you can't have children? What's next, base it on career potential? voter potential? Income potential?
We can deny everyone fertility treatment because unless there's tragedy, *everyone* will deteriorate and die before their children will!
WWW.GS2AC.COM. 2nd Amendment Grass Roots Action in the Bay Area, CA. We're not all "Breakfast Cereal" folks here! :)