The uncontrolled use of Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis is resulting in a deviation from its initial purpose, which fosters another ethical dilemma of pandering patients’ fantasies of the ‘perfect’ child. Due to the advances in this reproductive technology, there is fear of the possibility that parents will soon be able to customize their own idea of a designer baby. Almost a decade and a half ago, the term ‘designer baby’ was added to the dictionary where it is defined as a child whose genetic material has been manipulated in order to eliminate an anomaly or to ensure that a desired gene is present. We may be living in a generation where the second half of that definition can be accentuated and brought to life. The future of PGD can provide …show more content…
A lot of concerns regarding the life of an embryo were centered around the invasive technology that may be harmful to the embryo, causing a change in the procedure’s outcome. However, there is a less invasive approach called the polar body genetic analysis in which the biopsy is done at an earlier stage. Its “ aim is to select the oocytes after in vitro maturation procedure, which are appropriate for in vitro fertilization, and to improve the outcome of the oocyte in vitro maturation in the clinical practice” (Milachich). The polar body genetic analysis does have drawbacks that could result in a chance of aneuploidy but overall, its advantages include the lack of mosaicism and a decreased risk of affecting the embryo- worries that were expressed by those who did not agree with PGD for reasons of safety. If officials regulate the use of PGD, the concerns can be addressed and taken into consideration while the numerous benefits persist. In “Attitudes to PGD” Kalfoglou found that many Americans were in favor of using PGD to avoid severe genetic diseases but “are much less supportive of the hypothetical use of PGD to select for desirable traits such as strength and intelligence, and are divided over whether or not it is appropriate to use PGD for non-medical sex selection” (Kalfoglou 487). Using PGD for nonmedical purposes such as sex selection and the creation of designer babies should be banned completely. PGD is straying from its initial purpose but it can be prevented before it is too late. According to Deeney, “the ability to choose the sex of future offspring is contrary to natural law” (Deeney 256). The future of PGD can result in gender imbalances if the United States continues to permit the use of it,
Human Genetic Screening and Discrimination in Gattaca. Works Cited Missing A few months ago I watched a movie called Gattaca, which dealt with the issue of genetic discrimination in the near future. In the movie, people were separated into two classes, those that were genetically screened and positively altered before birth and the class that was unaltered. The separate classes had stark divisions, from what jobs that you were able to apply for to where you could eat. Security was aimed at keeping unaltered people away from the enhanced people.
After the discovery of genetically altering an embryo before implantation, “designer babies” was coined to describe a child genetically altered “to ensure specific intellectual and cosmetic characteristics.” (“Designer Babies” n.p.). This procedure combines genetic engineering and In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) to make sure certain characteristics are absent or present in an embryo (Thadani n.p.). The procedure also includes taking an embryo to be pre-implementation genetically diagnosed (PGD), another procedure that doctors use to screen the embryos (Stock n.p.). An embryo’s DNA goes through multiple tests to obtain an analysis of the embryo, which will list all the components of the embryo including genetic disorders and physical traits such as Down syndrome, blue eyes, and brown hair, for instance (Smith 7). Although the use of PGD is widely accepted by the “reproductive medical community” and the modifying of disorders or diseases is to a degree, once the characteristics are no longer health related “72% disapprove of the procedure” (“Designer Babies” n.p.). At this point the parents make decisions that would alter their child’s life forever and this decision is rather controversial in the U...
Two of the most popular technologies used today for sex selection are, in vitro fertilization (IVF) and pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) (Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, 2015). IVF involves combining the egg cells and the sperm cells outside the uterus. Once fertilized, the egg is then implanted back into the women’s uterus or stored for future use.
Picture a young couple in a waiting room looking through a catalogue together. This catalogue is a little different from what you might expect. In this catalogue, specific traits for babies are being sold to couples to help them create the "perfect baby." This may seem like a bizarre scenario, but it may not be too far off in the future. Designing babies using genetic enhancement is an issue that is gaining more and more attention in the news. This controversial issue, once thought to be only possible in the realm of science-fiction, is causing people to discuss the moral issues surrounding genetic enhancement and germ line engineering. Though genetic research can prove beneficial to learning how to prevent hereditary diseases, the genetic enhancement of human embryos is unethical when used to create "designer babies" with enhanced appearance, athletic ability, and intelligence.
A man and woman walk into an office where they are greeted by a fertility specialist, who then sets them in front of a computer. Here, the couple is able to scroll through various traits and characteristics, then mix and match them onto a computer generated infant so they can see how their chosen attributes will look when paired together. The man and woman decide on a baby boy with cornsilk blonde hair and emerald green eyes. Their future son will grow to 6 feet tall with an athletic build, have a genius IQ, and a predisposition for baseball. The doctor takes their order, and then schedules an appointment with the soon-to-be-parents to implant the embryo containing all those traits into the mother. While this scene may seem like a moment out of a science fiction novel, it is not too far off what very well may be available in the near future. Medical sciences and technologies are advancing rapidly, and in a society completely preoccupied with obtaining perfection, it should be no surprise to anyone that scientists are playing around with the idea of genetically engineering perfect humans. It is one thing to make the decision to enhance oneself with things like plastic surgery, steroids, collagen, herbal supplements, and so on. There is also nothing wrong with studying hard and practicing in a certain skill to reach expertise. But is it right to decide the fate of a child before he or she even has a chance to decide what they want for their self? Not only is there the sheer matter of right versus wrong, but there also many serious consequences to using such extreme sciences. Because these are new, experimental technologies, there is no predicting what adverse medical effects genetic modification could have on a child. Another plight...
of the same sex, then they are more apt to have a third. A second
How far is society willing to advance genetic enhancement technology before it becomes a moral wrong? Medical technology is well on the way to allowing parents to create designer babies, permitting parents to pick physical and internal qualities of unborn children. Due to the advance in technology allowing parents to genetically designer their own child, The American Medical Association (AMA) should create stronger codes of medical ethics and acts imposing limitations. The manipulating with embryos in order to create a parent’s ideal child is morally wrong, and should be against codes of ethics. In order to create a fine line between enhancement that prevents disease and birth defects, and the self-absorbed society that prefers children with little to no flaws; laws of ethics in medical practice need to be implemented. Therefore, with distinguished lines on medical ethics, society will not become divided and unrecognizable due to genetically enhanced humans.
Donor-assisted insemination is a process that enables a woman to conceive a child through the donated sperm/egg of a male or female. Donor insemination is a technique that has been used around the world for fifty eight years. This technique is often used in situations where a man or woman suffer from infertility and are unable to produce children on their own. Donor-insemination is also used to help gay people or single people have children. In these cases, the child grow up to never know their genetic father/mother. The children born from donor- assisted reproduction only have access to basic, non-identifying information such as: race, height, eye-color, etc. This is not enough information to settle the donor-inseminated (DI) children's desire to know about their parents. I personally think the DI children have a natural right to know where they came from. Many DI children say that knowing about their genetic parent is something that they desire more than anything in the world. These children have a right to know about their genetic background, not only for themselves, but for their children as well.
Discussion around genetic engineering and reproductive technologies always evolve around preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) -- the method by which early human embryos are genetically removed and then discarded or placed back in the uterus. Ronald Green’s argument in his article Building Baby from the Genes Up is based on an excessively basic understanding of preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) and genomic science. Green argues that “genomic science is racing toward a future in which foreseeable improvements include reduced susceptibility to a host of diseases, increased life span, better cognitive functioning, and maybe even cosmetic enhancement such as whiter, straightener teeth” (180) is deceiving when we consider the ethical issues of PGD. The risks of misapplication of PGD can lead to eugenics, destruction of embryos and can be used towards non-medical traits such as cosmetics enhancement and the fact of selecting offspring traits itself can be a problem to society.
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.
As modern technology continues to thrust forward, people are increasingly wondering which doors to open and which to leave closed. One of these technologies is a process called preimplantation genetic diagnosis or PGD. This technique is used to indentify genetic defects in embryos created through in vitro fertilization (IVF) before pregnancy. One would assume that this is a seemingly positive step towards alleviating inherited illnesses. Others say that this type of genetic revolution is like opening Pandora’s Box. People have been known to go to great lengths to conceive a child. When push comes to shove, people will take advantage of whatever technology is available to produce offspring. However, who should regulate such technology? There has always been a fine line between church and state. PGD needs to be regulated and monitored because of the highly ethical conundrums it produces.
The addition of a child into a family’s home is a happy occasion. Unfortunately, some families are unable to have a child due to unforeseen problems, and they must pursue other means than natural pregnancy. Some couples adopt and other couples follow a different path; they utilize in vitro fertilization or surrogate motherhood. The process is complicated, unreliable, but ultimately can give the parents the gift of a child they otherwise could not have had. At the same time, as the process becomes more and more advanced and scientists are able to predict the outcome of the technique, the choice of what child is born is placed in the hands of the parents. Instead of waiting to see if the child had the mother’s eyes, the father’s hair or Grandma’s heart problem, the parents and doctors can select the best eggs and the best sperm to create the perfect child. Many see the rise of in vitro fertilization as the second coming of the Eugenics movement of the 19th and early 20th century. A process that is able to bring joy to so many parents is also seen as deciding who is able to reproduce and what child is worthy of birthing.
Approximately 490,000 babies are born every day worldwide. About 11,000 babies are born each day in the United States alone, which means that at least eight babies are born every minute. Whether a pregnancy is planned for or not, the size, physical characteristics, and intellectual capabilities of a baby are predetermined by the chromosomes that combine in the mother during fertilization. The possibility and probability of a baby having any number of genetic diseases is also determined by genes and the embryo that is fertilized. In 1967, however, a study done by British scientists Robert Edwards and David Gardner paved the way for a life-altering scientific program now known as preimplantation genetic diagnosis, or PGD (Jha, 1).
The processes involved with editing an embryo’s genetic code are met with both opposition and excitement, depending on which side one chooses to take a stance. Scientists for the medical advancement along with wanting to create a new wave of embryonic enhancements in the future of genetic altering are encouraged by continued progressions in the field. Researchers for the practice believe it is essential to creating savior siblings, enhancing intellectual traits, editing out depression genes, making a more desirable child for a parent if they so desire, and eliminate the risk of inherited illnesses passed to a child. Researchers feel that by editing an embryo’s genetic code, it will then relieve stress on a family from having to cover the financial costs of having a child with disabilities. The experts for the procedure see the practice as making it more achievable to have a child free of deformities or other disabilities, especially for parents that both carry a harmful gene. The scientists also feel the disposal of unwanted embryos is them merely acting in the same way nature would, by creating a spontaneous abortion (miscarriage) during a pregnancy.
According to the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), the topic of gender selection, as an efficient way to choose the sex of babies anterior to the conception, is an ethically dangerous