More handpicked essays just for you.
Ethical dilemmas for assisted reproductive technology
Ethical dilemmas for assisted reproductive technology
Ethical dilemmas for assisted reproductive technology
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Philosophy Paper: Expository and Analytical on Laura Purdy
Expository:
In Laura Purdy’s account of Genetics and Reproductive Risks: Can Having Children Be Immoral?, Purdy’s claim is that conception of a child is immoral when there is reasonable concern of a genetic disorder and if prenatal screening is not done to see how likely it is for your child to obtain that disease, then it is wrong. Purdy thinks it is immoral to reproduce when we are at high risk of transmitting a disease or defect and she says it is wrong to reproduce without knowing the consequences of our genome. The birth of a child at risk of a serious defect could be prevented by abortion or preventing conception of a child. And conception is only allowable once a person has undergone a prenatal screening and if a selective abortion would be done, and for those who are against abortion must be extremely careful not to conceive.
Laura Purdy gives the example of Huntington’s disease, which she relates it to all other genetic disorders, it is an autosomal dominant trait, meaning that it has a fifty percent chance of being passed down from generation to generation. Huntington’s disease occurs between the ages of thirty too fifty. It is a progressive disease that leads to constant contractions and irregular movements of the body eventually resulting in death. Purdy’s reasoning for her claim that it is immoral to reproduce without prenatal screening is because of genetic diseases like Huntington’s disease, it makes an average person become subjected to prolong suffering. Purdy also thinks that passing down a genetic disease like Huntington’s without their consent and risking their welfare is wrong because we aren’t taking the future being into account.
Purdy says that ...
... middle of paper ...
...nimally satisfying life, but for now I think Purdy needs to rethink exactly what she means by minimally satisfying because with time everyone may develop conditions that will make life minimally unsatisfying. Because health, though it may count for life to be satisfying, but everyone’s health will eventually deteriorate causing pain and suffering, the question is when will it happen? And when it does, should we tell people to stop having children because of all the dangerous things in life that may cause pain and suffering and a minimally unsatisfying life? Just because some people may be at high risk for a genetic disorder that may lead to a minimally unsatisfying life, doesn’t mean they cannot come into existence, for a healthy person coming into this world may develop a condition or have a terrible accident and just as easily live a minimally unsatisfying life.
Huntington's Disease and Its Ethics In “Genetics and Reproductive Risk: Can having children be immoral,” L.M Purdy discusses the notion that the recent advances in reproductive technology impose a moral obligation on individuals to prevent the birth of “affected” babies that will not have a “minimally satisfying life.” There are, however, several assumptions that the author makes in reaching the conclusion that having “affected” children is immoral. The author makes the claim that people with Huntington’s disease are unlikely to live a minimally satisfying life. It is known however, that Huntington’s disease does not take any affect until 40-50 years of age.
One popular objection is: if it is immoral to deprive someone of a future, or a “future-like-ours”, then it is immoral to deprive a sperm or egg of a “future-like-ours”. Because it is immoral to deprive someone of a future, one must conclude that it is immoral to deprive a sperm or egg of a “future-like-ours”. This objection is in reference to different modes of contraception, such as condoms and birth control. Nevertheless, the biggest problem with Marquis’ argument that allowed for this objection was its indecisiveness and improbability to draw a definitive line. Marquis criticized the pro-lifers and pro-choicers for being unable to have a definitive definition and made the same mistake in his own argument. One could object to his argument by merely questioning where the decision would end; are we to believe that one is depriving a sperm or an egg a future when we use contraception? Another important note is the idea that a “future-like-ours” is even an even more ambiguous term than a “person” or “human being”. It is impossible for the average individual to know which of his sperm or her eggs carries a genetic abnormality that may cause their child to not have a
When considering pregnancy, as a parent genetics can play a significant role in the decision making process. In Bonnie Rough’s 2010 autobiography Carrier, we are introduced to the numerous issues surrounding this couple’s struggle to move forward with a difficult pregnancy. We learn that biological traits can be the deciding factor for many parents when contemplating the ultimate decision of giving birth to a child with potential genetic defects. Whether medically or morally, the nature of terminating a pregnancy can be an emotionally painful decision with life long consequences. Throughout the book, Bonnie and her husband Dan share their personal journey into their thoughts and struggles about the difficulty of starting a family.
Hereditary is a term used to describe something that is passed from parent to child, in most cases its specific genes like baldness, height, and hair color but in other, more dangerous cases, it can refer to passing of genetic diseases like hemophilia, dementia, and specific types of cancer. Reading through Robert Green’s, Building a Baby from the Genes Up, provides readers with an insight on the latest new in genetic modification. Green speech on a couple that went to a doctor looking to remove the genetic gene of breast cancer in their family. The issue at hand it the use of genetic modification to perfect a baby, as sated in Green’s article, “the HFEA (the Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority), in approving this request, crossed a bright line separating legitimate medical genetics from the quest for "the perfect baby” (Green
Julian Savulescu tries to argue on the grounds of Utilitarianism that parents have a moral duty to improve their children’s genetic makeup in the same way that they would improve the child’s “environment” or prevent diseases (The Ethical Life, 443). Julian thinks this is a duty because it will yield the most positive outcomes or consequences. He believes that failure to use genetic enhancements, when a parent has an opportunity to benefit their child, is neglecting the child’s needs which is morally wrong (The Ethical Life, 443). Julian also defends his position by claiming that it would be inconsistent to “train our children to behave well”, but then refuse to seek genetic enhancements for our children so they have the tools to succeed, when
In today’s advanced world, modern technology has enabled humans to accomplish tasks once thought to be purely science fiction. We live in a world today where everything is instant and custom designed. Who would have ever thought that one day parents would be able to design their children? Pre-implantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD) is a “process [that] involves taking a 3day old embryo and pulling one of its six cells to test for genetic markers of disease.” (Edmonds0. Although this process is meant to help discover harmful diseases or complications like cancer, the idea of parents using this process to give their children what they consider “ideal traits” co0mes into question. Even though parents have a right to do what they think is best for their children, parents should not be allowed to genetically engineer their children because it can create new social and economic distinctions as well as destroy the idea that everyone is created equal no matter their differences.
The diseases that exist in our world are enough to make medicine and testing the only option of hope in times of need. People grow up happy and healthy, only to be diagnosed, in their middle age, with an adult-onset disease. These diseases only become a burden as the victim gets older. Some commonly known ones are Alzheimer’s or Huntington’s disease. There is no cure or treatment for adult-onset diseases like this. Knowing that the victims have these diseases written in their DNA from the moment they were born leads to an interesting argument. Several communities argue about whether parents or guardians should have the right to test their children for these diseases. There are many arguments, however, that stem from the social and ethical aspect of the effects it could have on the kids.
Imagine a parent walking into what looks like a conference room. A sheet of paper waits on a table with numerous questions many people wish they had control over. Options such as hair color, skin color, personality traits and other physical appearances are mapped out across the page. When the questions are filled out, a baby appears as he or she was described moments before. The baby is the picture of health, and looks perfect in every way. This scenario seems only to exist in a dream, however, the option to design a child has already become a reality in the near future. Parents may approach a similar scenario every day in the future as if choosing a child’s characteristics were a normal way of life. The use of genetic engineering should not give parents the choice to design their child because of the act of humans belittling and “playing” God, the ethics involved in interfering with human lives, and the dangers of manipulating human genes.
Isabel A. Karpin, Choosing disability: preimplantation genetic diagnosis and negative enhancement. Journal of Law and Medicine. 15, 89-103 (2007).
Technology is available to identify disorders such as Down Syndrome, although these tests are only accurate about 60% of the time. It seems strange that people rely on tests like this before they even see the child and can know for sure if they have any disorders. Imagine testing a fetus for complications in their genome and receiving positive results, only to find out after birth that nothing is wrong. Upon finding out that their child is probably affected by a disorder, some mothers would abort the child in this situation. This issue resonates well with pro-life citizens, who say a child should never be aborted. Some with the opposing belief would say that abortion in this case is acceptable. Abortion should never be performed if this is the only reason for doing so. If the mother wanted to have a child in the first place, she should follow through with her
Rob Stein wrote an article about a mother Lori Martin called “Proposed Treatment to Fix Genetic Disease that Raises Ethical Issues.” Lori Martins, is a mother from Houston that found out that her son Will was born with a...
In today’s world, people are learning a great deal in the rapidly growing and developing fields of science and technology. Almost each day, an individual can see or hear about new discoveries and advances in these fields of study. One science that is rapidly progressing is genetic testing; a valuable science that promotes prevention efforts for genetically susceptible people and provides new strategies for disease management. Unnaturally, and morally wrong, genetic testing is a controversial science that manipulates human ethics. Although genetic testing has enormous advantages, the uncertainties of genetic testing will depreciate our quality of life, and thereby result in psychological burden, discrimination, and abortion.
Technological developments occur every day, from medicine to medical techniques to preventive screenings, that assist in making each generation healthier than the ones that came before it. In the medical field, specifically in genetics, research into DNA modifications to remove diseases is advancing at an immense rate. Conventionally during most prenatal health appointments, women who are pregnant have the option to undergo prenatal screenings to find out if the future child is healthy, but in the last few decades testing for genetic mutations in the future child has become possible and more popular. However, not everybody sees this as a morally right act. Countless debates and questions have been sparked over the subject
In contradiction, the intended audience are also couples who may have conceived or plan to conceive a child with a potential genetic disorder. This is indicated by inclusive language such as, “Is it ethically right to kill your own child?” and by attacking Australian couples who want to conceive a “normal child”.
New technological advances are being mad every day, especially in genetics. With great innovations comes concerns whether it will have a good cause or be used for bad intentions. One of these is eugenics, the idea to improve genetic composition in humans most specifically in future fetuses. The idea started in 1883 by Sir Francis Galton who wanted to selectively breed humans using desired traits to create a perfect human race. This lead to many unethical moments in history such as the sterilization of unfit humans in the 19th century as well as Hitler’s use of eugenics during WWII. However, current use helps identify possible inherited diseases/conditions in unborn children and remove those traits from the DNA. Although eugenics has been used