As we improve technology more and more, we are faced with ethical dilemmas that were unimaginable to past generations. In the following article, a technique called PGD is highlighted. This technique was developed to allow doctors to screen embryos for genetic disorders when using IVF. In addition to screening for these genetic disorders, it is also possible to detect the babies sex. Is it ethical for parents to choose the sex of the embryos being implanted? What further ethical dilemmas can you see stem from this? In addition, the article shows the opinions of people from different countries. Do the differing view points impact the ethical issues at play? How does cultural relativism play a role? More info is available here.
(Submitted by Caren Steinway)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
PGD clearly violates Kantian based ethics. By screening for gender, parents are choosing their prospective children as a means for their wants and desires -- whether that be for a "balanced family" or a child without impairment. According to Kant, people should never be used as means to an end, only as ends. This use of embryos of a means to an end is a slippery slope. It implies a disrespect and a overall giving of little value to the human embryo. For example, if an embryo is screened and is not what the parents want, then the embryo is wasted. This could imply a large disrespect for human life as a whole; life will begin to have little meaning if it can be granted or revoked easily based on the results of a few tests. Another possible side effect of PGD is the use of "savior siblings". Parents may choose to have children who are blood matches or bone marrow matches for other sick children or family members. Again, this would make the child a means to anothers end, which would also lead to a decrease and disrespect for the future autonomy of that child.
ReplyDelete-Kathryn Roberts
It is true that the implications that one scientific discovery will have down the road are unknown and that scientific advancement should not be hindered because of what it could be used wrongly for. In the case of PGD, its use to eliminate some rare and deadly forms of disease is noble and research in the area should be considered. However the new arising couterpart of gender choosing is unnethical for several reasons. This is devaluing the quality of a life. The egalitarian principle states taht all humans are equal. However when we begin programming our babies this sacred quality is lost. Initially this is the first step to a slippery slope which could lead to a world of blonde hair, blue eyed army. The choice to select for specific qualities is fundamentally the same as Hitler's choice to purify the Aryan race, but much less extreme. Inevitably the line will not be drawn at gender choice. Options may progress to desired sills or abilities. At this point many ethical issues are necessary to address. Firstly, just distribution of resources would undeniably not agree with the gender choice and other genetically engineered options dealing solely with convenience or preference (disease is not included since it carries a moral significance). Resources are more justly allocated by providing basic necessities required for life to the near majority of the population of the world living in poverty. Additionally this procedure would likely be expensive meaning only wealthy people could "design" their baby. If ulra-qualities are being shifted to the wealthy part of the population the divide between rich and poor will only further divide. Those who have the money could potentially buy a better baby.
ReplyDeleteCultural relativism adds an interesting component to his argument. I would want to argue that is would have no effect on the ethical defensibility of this procedure however to do this would assume that the arguments addressed are universal. This however goes against the idea of cultural relativism. Being true to strict cultural relativism we would have to accept other cultures performing this if it withheld the cultural norms of the society. From an outside perspective it would be difficult to watch, say China increase the ratio of male to female by something like 70-30. This would undoubtedly result in a landslide or problems with unforeseeable repercussions.
PGD should was developed to make sure that no embryos with substantial genetic defects are not implanted into women who are using IVF. What defines a substantial genetic defect might change over time as we can diagnose more diseases and traits through this technique. In terms of choosing gender for embryos that are implanted, I would say that it is unethical. It’s a bad idea because certain cultures prefer one gender over another, as the article says China and India both prefer male children over female. If significantly more male embryos are implanted and this becomes a common practice, then there is a high risk of too many males being born and the future of the species would be threatened. Therefore from a utilitarian point of view, it would be wrong for the general population if people started to choose the gender of their children. Further dilemmas that may arise include a society similar to that seen in the movie Gattica, in which many members of the society are altered in utero and made to be physically superior and those that haven’t been altered are discriminated against.
ReplyDeleteI don't necessarily support the idea of "designer babies" and getting to choose what your baby will look like; however, how is this really any different than getting to choose the egg and sperm that don't carry genetic diseases during IVF? In Vitro Fertilization is supposed to be for women who are having a hard time getting pregnant, but by doing it, they are automatically given the choice of having a baby that does not have any of the parents' bad or harmful traits. How is this fair to the people who cannot afford IVF? Those people can't have children at all, let alone choose its gender. How is this fair to any family who gets pregnant naturally? That is even better than getting to choose the gender of your baby because you know that they will be free of genetic disease. But nothing in life is fair, so at this point, why stunt science? You can argue this point for all healthcare, saying that people with more money stay healthier. If they offer the service and people are willing to pay for it, who is to stop them? The government has not regulated IVF so far because it is mostly beneficial, and getting to choose the gender of your baby is as well.
ReplyDelete-Jessie Kavanagh
It is of course ethical for anyone to decide how they want to reproduce regardless of how or why they do it, as long is no one else is harmed. It is their autonomous decision to have a child of their desired sex if they have the means to do it and it would be a part of their procreative liberty to do so. It is interesting to look at how new reproductive technology is having us question the ethics of what kind of children people have. Before any of this technology, people loosely selected the children they would have by picking a desirable mate. Limiting the use of this technology would be like telling someone they must pick a random mate to have a child with. PGD is also used already to screen embryos in IVFs for disease potential which is an excepted use of this technology, so people are already willing to make selections based on this. How close is selecting the sex to selecting for disease? Many people find problems with this technology because its cost would not make it available to everyone who might want it.
ReplyDeleteOf course many people would not choose to do this as can be seen with the CNN article. However that doesn't mean that this technology should be considered unethical. The people who do not believe in it could simply choose not to use it.
I don't necessarily support the idea of "designer babies" and getting to choose what your baby will look like; however, how is this really any different than getting to choose the egg and sperm that don't carry genetic diseases during IVF? In Vitro Fertilization is supposed to be for women who are having a hard time getting pregnant, but by doing it, they are automatically given the choice of having a baby that does not have any of the parents' bad or harmful traits. How is this fair to the people who cannot afford IVF? Those people can't have children at all, let alone choose its gender. How is this fair to any family who gets pregnant naturally? That is even better than getting to choose the gender of your baby because you know that they will be free of genetic disease. But nothing in life is fair, so at this point, why stunt science? You can argue this point for all health care, saying that people with more money stay healthier. If they offer the service and people are willing to pay for it, who is to stop them? The government has not regulated IVF so far because it is mostly beneficial, and getting to choose the gender of your baby is as well.
ReplyDelete-Jessie Kavanagh