[BETWEEN USAGE AND POLEMIC, AN ARGUMENT IN FAVOUR OF CLARIFYING THE TERMINOLOGY FOR PREIMPLANTATION GENETIC DIAGNOSIS].

Over 30 years ago, preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) was developed to help couples at risk of transmitting a serious genetic disease to their offspring. Today, the range of medical and non-medical uses of PGD has expanded considerably and some raise much controversy. This is the case, for example, with In-Vitro Fertilization to select embryos as 'saviour siblings' or to screen for susceptibility and predisposition to late onset diseases or conditions of variable penetrance. The situation is even more problematic in the case of sex selection or selection of traits that are culturally valued or discredited (such as deafness, behavioral traits, or height). The debate surrounding PGD has been employing terms to describe these particular uses that have contributed to a focus on the negative effects, thus preventing a distinction between the abuses and the benefits of this reproductive technology. In this context, this paper proposes a terminological clarification that would allow distinguishing medical and non-medical use and, therefore, the issues relevant to each. A more accurate and less generic nomenclature could prevent a conflation of different levels of ethical, clinical and social issues under the single term 'PGD'. For the vast majority of medical uses, we propose to keep: 'preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD)', which emphasizes that it is a genetic diagnosis. For non-medical uses, we suggest: 'preimplantation genetic trait selection (PGTS)'.