ABSTRACT
Most of the time, our ideas of the good life are private business, not a matter of politics. Most of the time, perhaps, but not during an episode that captivated Dutch politics beginning May 26, 2008. That day, Deputy Minister of Health, Jet Bussemaker, announced that genetic (PGD), or embryo selection, would be permitted in prevention of familial breast cancer (Bussemaker 2008 a). PGD is a technique to identify genetic predispositions for congenital diseases in embryos, which enables the selection of embryos without (known) diseases for implantation in the womb, as part of an in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycle. Mrs. Bussemaker was convinced that the announcement was a mere formalization of what was already common practice: Maastricht University Medical Center, the only hospital with a PGD permit, already applied PGD in cases of familial breast cancer. Moreover, she considered breast cancer a condition just as burdensome as Huntington’s and Steinert’s diseases, so extension would only be consistent. In fact, PGD had hitherto only been permitted formally in prevention of genetic or heritable diseases, such as Huntington’s and Steinert’s, but the practice is a typical example of Dutch ‘toleration policy.’ In the Netherlands, legal changes are often preceded by a rearrangement of the actual practice. In this period prior to legal change, conduct in line with the envisioned policy is not sanctioned, even though it is formally illegal. (Dutch marijuana regulation is a case in point, showing that the period can be several decades, and moreover not always produces a final, formal solution.)
