But it raises once again the moral and ethical questions surrounding embryo testing and selection.



It's a hugely controversial family portrait. Three day old James Whitaker may save the life of his older brother Charlie. But he was conceived and genetically screened specifically for that purpose.



James was born at this hospital in Sheffield on Monday - the result of embryo screening. Doctors told the family that a transplant of stem cells from a sibling was the best hope of curing their older son's rare anaemia. When the Human Fertility and Embryology Authority told them it was illegal in Britain, the family had to travel to a clinic in the United States for the procedure.



Last year Raj and Shahana Hashmi from Leeds tried to go ahead with embryo screening. They hoped to conceive a child who might help cure their son Zain of a rare blood disorder. When this was challenged by a pro-life group, the Hashmis had to go to court to get permission. The law only allows embryo screening if it will benefit the child created. The HFEA argued that in the Hashmis case screening should go ahead because there was every chance a new baby would also suffer the same blood disorder as Zain.



During screening cells are removed from the embryo for testing. But in the Whitaker's case a gene for Charlie's anaemia can't be isolated. And in any case there's only a two percent chance that baby James will inherit the anaemia. So the HFEA argues that screening should not have gone ahead as there is no benefit to the child created.



Suzi Leather, HFEA:

"The HFEA has to look at potential benefits and risks of new treatments. It's cutting edge, there's sufficient uncertainty from ethical, medical, legal point of view to allow us to make a decision."



But whatever the view of the authority - it can't stop people going abroad to get around a law which has long been overtaken by medical advances.