Ian Sample has a clear, concise explainer over at The Guardian about the procedure, passed by British MPs today, that would allow replacement of faulty maternal DNA with third-party female mitochondria. One of the primary legal issues raised by the vote is substantially similar in the U.K. and the U.S.:

Mitochondrial transfer passes on genetic changes from one generation to another. That raises ethical concerns because any unexpected problems caused by the procedure could affect people who are not yet born, and so cannot give their consent to have the treatment. Mitochondria are not completely understood, and the DNA they hold might affect people’s traits in unknown ways. For that reason, some scientists believe mitochondria should be better understood before the procedures are legalised.

(emphasis added)

The House of Lords takes up the bill later this month and, if they pass it, it will become law in the United Kingdom. U.S. law considers medical treatment without the patient’s consent battery, and the offender can face both criminal and civil liability. Similar liability exists under U.K. law, as well.

The problem is complex because in a way it is the opposite of abortion: medical intervention meant to prevent potentially life-threatening conditions. The patient, in this case the unborn child, will, assuming the procedure is effective to the extent it prevents life-threatening conditions, survive to assert his or her victimhood in the event of adverse consequences.

I don’t know the answer here, but I will be watching this story and I’ll write about any updates as they happen.