1. Talk about your feelings related to the issues brought up in today's ethics article and discussion. How do you feel about using siblings' "spare parts" for sick children? Do you worry about the potential for a slippery slope that might lead to genetic engineering?
6 comments:
The ethics discussion was incredibly enlightening as I saw some implications of P.G.D that I had never even considered. Initially I thought it seemed like a great solution, but then I came to realize the potential abuses that could result from technology like this becoming widespread. The ‘slippery slope’ often discussed in ethics is a serious problem that we all have to think about. If we start screening for diseases, what is going to stop us from screening for intelligence? And then height or hair color? At some point, babies will become accessories, a sort of mix-and-match-whatever-you-want consumerist item. Of course there is a plethora of issues that we have to deal with and in almost every issue we already seem to be sliding down a very dangerous hill. Now it just comes down to whether or not we are willing to put on our breaks before it is too late.
The ethics discussion was very interresting. Many of the discussions that have been traveling in the undercurrent of medicine were addressed and I felt that the arguements brought up were legitimate problems. When it comes to genetic engineering, my beliefs lie in that every fertilized egg has some form of life and the potential for becoming a human child. Yes, it is troublesome that in the future we could very possibly be screening for intelligence and hair color, etc. But how about now? What do we do about the sometimes 26-30 fertilized eggs that do not match the "genetic desire"? Who are we to play God and say that they cannot have an equal chance at life? Yes, we can think of the future and how we may or may not slip down the slope but when it comes to it, we are already going down it--we need rules, regulations, and guidelines to prevent us from going any further. Genetic engineering takes the naturalness out of having children, the surprise and joy out of bringing a new life into the world. Yes, it is rough to have a disabled child, or a child with a fatal disease where this is the only way out--but we must trod carefully if we do go the genetic engineering route--because that slippery slow keeps getting steeper.
I think that Genetic engineering is a wonderful breakthrough that could save thousands of lives. While I do agree with Andrew and Anne that it needs regulations, I don't really see an issue with deciding on the appearance of the child. Since everyone thinks differently and considers different looks attractive, there will still be a huge variety of hair, skin, and eye colors. While it wouldn't be a real issue for parents to decide on their child's appearance, I do agree with Ann that it would take the surprise out of having children. I think that the leftover embryos that don't have terminal illnesses should be kept frozen and maybe used for adoptions, but no parents should be required to birth 20 children after trying desperately to save the one they do have. I believe that it is that child's duty to supply bone marrow or fetal cells to it's sibling. When it comes to kidneys though, I am not so adamant. That is a major removal which will alter both children's lives. I am not really worried about a slippery slope because this argument can and has been brought up every time there is a major scientific breakthrough.
I am taking full use of the forum here and going back to discuss points brought up after my post--sorry to those who think that this is rediculous.
Chris, not to pin-point your argument but perhaps we might think of this--let us think of how many times it took the couples (each of them) to get a simple GENETIC match for their child. Now lets fast-forward twenty years from now. How many embryos are we going to go through just to get an appearance? Thats not re-ordering or hopeing for one or two different genes in a genetic makeup but several. Also, the remaining embryos--on the topic of adoption--how many children are there in the world now that are not adopted? And I'm only talking about CHILDREN, those who are already capable of sustaining life by themselves. There are thousands upon thousands of unadopted children--and now we start on embryos. The fact is, that just like the issue of adoption now, "embryo banks" would be filled faster than the demand for embryos. When we get down to the "nitty gritty" stuff the more we open this door for those who really do not need this genetic altering option, but are merely doing it for pleasure. In dire situations this can be acceptable but where do we draw the line if we were to open up genetic engineering futher, to those who have the money and want to spend it creating the ideal child?
Yes, it is unfair for a mother to have to birth twenty children--and I'm not arguing that she should be made to--thats just rediculous. But she must realize that she has created these children and now she is responsible for them--born or unborn. And that might mean finding carrier mothers to adopt them, etc, but she is responsible--they are her children.
The ethics discussion really made me consider various issues in a different light than I previously had. For example, I have conflicting feelings about using siblings for "spare parts", especially after considering, due to this discussion, the fact that this advancing technology could so easily be abused by parents hoping for certain aspects in a child beyond ones relating to their health. I do worry about the potential of a slippery slope leading to genetic engineering, for with each technological advance there presents more oppurtunities for the technology to be employed for immoral reasons.
The ethics discussion was rather intriguing. I don't think that parents should just have a child solely for "spare parts", I feel like there should be more to the decision than that. I do think, however, that parents do the PGD for good reasons, and I think that in certain cases, that's all anyone could have done. I do think that it might lead to genetic engineering, but hopefully it will just be used for the purpose of saving lives.
Post a Comment