In life for some people, having babies is as simple as counting to ten. Then there are others, it is as difficult as completing a marathon they never trained for. There are new mothers over 40 years of age that has birth very healthy babies, while other mothers over 40 have babies and a list of medical issues as a result the mother being older. Parents who have not been successful with having children or have decided to wait until they were older to start their families, may explore the assistance of reproductive and genetic technology to start their families or reduce the risk of health issues. The choice to use reproductive and genetic technology should be the sole decision of the parents and their doctor, or should it? This paper will analyze the governing body of reproductive and genetic technology. Then, it will process doctors and parents freewill to use technologies as they see fit. …show more content…
Using reproductive and genetic technology is a big decision for patients, and should be explored with the help of their doctor and a reproductive counselor. Should the government place limits on parents’ decision to use reproductive and genetic technology? The government has an ethical responsibility to protect its citizens by placing limits on the different technologies used in the U.S. However, the government takes a neutral stance on the parents’ choice on whether to use the available legal reproductive and genetic technology
In kilner’s case study “Having a baby the new-fashioned way”, present a story that can be relatable to a lot of families struggling to have a child. This is a dilemma that can be controversial and ethical in own sense. The couple that were discussed in the case study were Betty and Tom. Betty and Tom who are both in their early forties who have struggled to bear children. Dr. Ralph Linstra from Liberty University believes that “Fertility can be taken for granted”. Dr. Ralph talks about how many couples who are marriage may run into an issue of bearing a child and turn to “medical science” to fix the issue. He discusses that “God is author of life and he can open and close the womb”. That in it’s self presents how powerful God.
With the increased rate of integrating In Vitro Fertilization (IVF), there has been a steep inclination within the associated needs of specifications. Observably, the development of babies using scientific measures was initially formulated and specified for developing the diverse range of development associated with the same (Turriziani, 2014). However, these developments are noted to be creating an adverse impact on the natural course of events and subsequently, resulting with an adverse impact on the natural process of the development of babies. The initial integrations within the system of IVF for developing babies have further been initiated with the effective use of science to develop a healthy baby. Hence, the use of such progressions can be argued as not hampering the ethical needs associated with the same. Conversely, the initial progression within the same and the changes in the use of such practices are identified as unethical, as it has been acting as a threat in the natural course of development of embryos and altering the natural course of events, suspected to be imposing significant influence on infant mortality (Turriziani,
What do one think of when they hear the words “Designer Babies”? A couple designing their own baby of course, and it’s become just that. Technology has made it possible for there to be a way for doctors to modify a babies characteristics and its health. Genetically altering human embryos is morally wrong, and can cause a disservice to the parents and the child its effecting.
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.
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.
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.
There is an undeniable truth, in today’s world, that technology has changed our lives and traditional beliefs that most of people have had difficulty in getting used to that. One of the most questionable changes the technology has given rise to is recently gender selection. It’s been argued for so long whether it is ethical and its possible effects upon societies. Some say it is unethical on the grounds that we interfere with a God’s job that we don’t have a right upon it but with this saying, some important points of these issues are ignored such as reaching a goal which has been wished to come true or possible positive psychological impacts of this opportunity on a family. It, actually, brings about a question in most of people’s mind that would you rather be a person who has never reached your goal which you’ve wished to come true most because some alleged authoritarians took this opportunity away from you ? Some say gender selection is not ethical but is taking right of reaching whatever was aimed by parents away really ethical ? Some people are really biased about sex selection by those alleged authoritarians who have power to inject their intentions to people and they have showed the possible dangers of this issue to the traditional habits as an excuse. They also cast the rest wishing this opportunity to be enacted out of their mind, shortly they ignore them. However, this opportunity should be permissible because of the cruciality in a family with respect to choosing the sex of their babies according to their own standard and happiness of achieving what has been wished to reach in families and taking advantage of this opportunity in a way of medical purposes.
Morris, D. T. (1993). Cost containment and reproductive autonomy: Prenatal genetic screening and the American health security act of 1993. American Journal of Law & Medicine, 20, 295-316.
One of these moral dilemmas is that genetic engineering changes the traditional dynamic that occurs between the parent and the offspring. This issue arose over the possibility of having a human embryo with three genetic parents which is now possible due to genetic engineering. The procedure in question “involves transplanting the chromosomes from a single-cell embryo or from an unfertilized egg into a donor egg or embryo from which the chromosomes have been removed”(Foht). The procedure itself is very useful for women with mitochondrial disorders but the issue involved with this is that the embryo would technically have three biological parents. There needs to be a real concern about “the way genetic engineering can alter the relationship between the generations from one of parents accepting the novelty and spontaneous uniqueness of their children to one where parents use biotechnology to choose and control the biological nature of their children”(Foht). There is a special relationship between children and their parents that may be disappearing very soon due to these techniques. Children could be born never truly knowing one of their genetic parents. If these procedures continue to prosper people will have to “accept arrangements that split apart the various biological and social aspects of parenthood, and that deliberately create
Fertilization is a very important aspect in a human life. Without fertilization, human cannot reproduce and no offspring will be produced. This means that the human race will be completely wiped out in more or less a century. So when there is a problem in the human fertility, it is very important to have a solution to overcome this problem.
Test tube babies have long been stigmatized by society as the unnatural results of scientific dabbling. The words `test tube baby' have been used by school children as an insult, and many adults have seen an artificial means of giving birth as something perhaps only necessary for a lesbian woman, or a luxury item only available to the elite few. The reality is that assisted reproductive technologies (ART) have been helping infertile couples have children since 1978.1 The methods of in vitro fertilization, it's variants, and the other ART procedures are ways for persons that would otherwise have no hope of conception to conceive and, in a rapidly growing percentage of cases, give birth to healthy babies. As the technology has developed, the quality and range of assistance has developed as well. At present, the means of assisted reproduction and the capabilities of these procedures has grown at a somewhat dizzying pace. However, thought to the repercussions of the applications of ART are being disregarded to some extent while the public's knowledge and the understanding of embryologists and geneticists surges forward. It is possible given consideration to things such as the morality of these techniques, the unexplored alternative uses of these procedures, and the potential impact they posses that further development is unnecessary and possibly dangerous.
Aldous Huxley’s dystopian Brave New World is more than a warning against the dangers of technology; it is a prediction for the future that rings eerily true. Today we understand that many of the fantastical devices and practices imagined by Huxley are coming to life. Most notable is the practice of in vitro fertilization, something that was a mad scientist’s dream during Huxley’s time, and is today a commonplace practice. According to the National Institutes of Health, in vitro fertilization is “the joining of a woman’s egg and a man’s sperm in a laboratory dish” (Storck). The procedure was first performed successfully in 1978 and has since become widely used today by couples that desire a child and are unable to conceive by “natural” means.
Pray, Leslie A., Ph.D. “Embryo Screening and the Ethics of Human Genetic Engineering.” Nature.com. Nature Publishing Group, 2008. Web. The Web.
As a young adult, it may seem foolish to predict what your future family life will look like, especially in regards to children. Often times this reality is forced upon a select few, particularly homosexual couples; however, with the innovation of in vitro fertilization (IVF), a couple is met with promise and the hope of a successful family life. IVF can be described as a process by which a fetus is genetically formed in a laboratory setting. Though this process may seem unnatural in essence, it allows for a more diverse family arrangement through medical innovation. This procedure, though controversial, is seen by many as an advancement in the medical field and can be accredited to procuring a healthy child for an unfortunate family, whether
There are different ways and reasons why people wish to change the genes in their cells; the two categories split into “somatic and germline genetic engineering”. When a scientist uses “somatic genetic engineering” -the sex cells-- eggs and sperms are not affected; a specific gene code is changed and the genes do not pass down to the next generation. The other genetic engineering used is “germline” which, in contrast to somatic engineering, affects the eggs and sperms. When germline genetic engineering is used, the genes will be passed down to the next generation, affecting the physical and genetic traits. The debate rises and people question people’s free will. Bioethics is the formal and recognized term that describes the advantages and disadvantages that genetic enginee...