The bane of my existence in an information-overloaded world is to put something "aside"--some place on my computer where I can't forget it--only to stumble across it days or weeks after I had meant to address it. Such is the case with what Slate columnist William Saletan called "eugenic euphemisms."

Earlier this month a British hospital sent out a press release that was picked up by the press. University College Hospital's spin was uncritically accepted by the headline writers: "Britain's first cancer-free designer baby born after being screened for deadly gene."

Concerned that a child they would have would carry a gene [BRCA1] that could predispose the child to breast cancer, an unnamed couple used IVF techniques to "harvest" eleven embryos. Nine were "discarded"--- six of whom were found "to contain the BRCA1 gene"--and three others who were "discarded" for other "abnormalities." The other two were implanted, according to the Daily Mail, and one led to a successful pregnancy.

Between critical comments found in the British press stories and Saletan's thoughtful critique, it's easy to see the road down which preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) is taking us.

The definition of "abnormalities" is, of course, infinitely elastic. "It is the same principle as screening of pregnancies at 12 weeks for conditions such as Down's Syndrome," said Paul Serhal, medical director of the hospital's assisted conception unit. There were lots of questions about "designer babies," all of which Serhal deflected. But on what logical basis could you deny parents the opportunity to screen (aka abort the "wrong" embryo) for eye color and I.Q.?

Saletan does an excellent job illuminated the degradation of language that is part and parcel of what is, after all, eugenics.

He alludes to the infamous (and bogus) distinction between an embryo and a so-called "pre-embryo." And then…

"Now we're adjusting the word conception," he writes. "Henceforth, testing of IVF embryos to decide which will live or die is preconception. Don't fret about the six eggs we fertilized, rejected, and flushed in selecting this baby. They were never really conceived. In fact, they weren't embryos. According to Serhal, each was just 'an affected cluster of cells.'"

Also, and this is huge, moving from voluntary to quasi-compulsory is a very, very short step.

The press accounts are filled with words like "specter" and "inflicting" and "eradication." Saletan notes that prior to genetic screening, no parent was "blamed" if his or her child was born with a malady.

"But with the advent of PGD," he writes, "the equation has changed. Now you can eliminate your risk of transmitting the bad gene--and if you don't take that precaution, you're 'inflicting' the consequences. In this way, today's embryo-screening option becomes tomorrow's obligation."

Saletan's column can be read at http://www.slate.com/id/2208633