Comments on: Ethical Issues With Prenatal and Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis by Professor Lawrence Nelson http://thetechnologicalcitizen.com/?p=1022 Ethical Reflections On Modern Technology Tue, 22 Jun 2010 04:42:56 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.3 hourly 1 By: NateMay http://thetechnologicalcitizen.com/?p=1022&cpage=2#comment-541 NateMay Tue, 22 Jun 2010 04:42:56 +0000 http://thetechnologicalcitizen.com/?p=1022#comment-541 Beginning with question 1, I agree with the article’s position that using PGD to select sex is at least morally questionable. There is simply not a medical benefit for selecting the sex of your child, besides the case of a deadly or incurable sex linked characteristic, however, I am not sure if we should restrict PGD use to just medical reasons. I strongly believe in autonomy, and preventing a family from shaping their family the way they want – a boy and a girl, two boys, three girls, whatever they choose – troubles me a bit, we don’t prevent how many children people can have after all. However, the possible impact of gender preference worries me, although our society has made great strides in our views on gender, I could see how the introduction of PGD to select gender could greatly reverse that progress. Overall I don’t think I can pick an ethical side on this question, which to me warrants its exploration until its true impact can be seen. On to question 2, I do believe PGD does reinforce a negative and oppressive message towards existing disabled people, however this is not an entirely negative thing, it is an unfortunate side-effect of the rise of PGD popularity. My first reaction to this was to think about putting ones-self into the life of a heavily disabled person, would you not wish to have your body and mind back? I thought, why wouldn’t the heavily disabled? The counterargument is of course that they are happy the way they are because it made them who they are, and that society largely exaggerates the “burden” on themselves and their families. But why wouldn’t we “want to provide everything science gives me to [our] patients” to make sure no person, no child has to have limited opportunities or suffer pain? It is every parent’s responsibility to take care of their child no matter their condition, but I believe in autonomy, that every parent should be able to prevent disability if they want, society shouldn’t prevent this. Continuing on to question 3, I completely agree with Dr. Steinberg, who I quoted earlier. I strongly believe in the technological imperative, that if we have a technology we have a moral obligation to use it for the betterment of our world, so therefore the positive possibilities of PGD absolutely warrant use by doctors to do their job, to heal and prevent suffering. We should not hinder our scientific pursuits because there is a possibility of misuse or morally reprehensible outcomes; it is against the exploratory spirit of science. Beginning with question 1, I agree with the article’s position that using PGD to select sex is at least morally questionable. There is simply not a medical benefit for selecting the sex of your child, besides the case of a deadly or incurable sex linked characteristic, however, I am not sure if we should restrict PGD use to just medical reasons. I strongly believe in autonomy, and preventing a family from shaping their family the way they want – a boy and a girl, two boys, three girls, whatever they choose – troubles me a bit, we don’t prevent how many children people can have after all. However, the possible impact of gender preference worries me, although our society has made great strides in our views on gender, I could see how the introduction of PGD to select gender could greatly reverse that progress. Overall I don’t think I can pick an ethical side on this question, which to me warrants its exploration until its true impact can be seen.
On to question 2, I do believe PGD does reinforce a negative and oppressive message towards existing disabled people, however this is not an entirely negative thing, it is an unfortunate side-effect of the rise of PGD popularity. My first reaction to this was to think about putting ones-self into the life of a heavily disabled person, would you not wish to have your body and mind back? I thought, why wouldn’t the heavily disabled? The counterargument is of course that they are happy the way they are because it made them who they are, and that society largely exaggerates the “burden” on themselves and their families. But why wouldn’t we “want to provide everything science gives me to [our] patients” to make sure no person, no child has to have limited opportunities or suffer pain? It is every parent’s responsibility to take care of their child no matter their condition, but I believe in autonomy, that every parent should be able to prevent disability if they want, society shouldn’t prevent this.
Continuing on to question 3, I completely agree with Dr. Steinberg, who I quoted earlier. I strongly believe in the technological imperative, that if we have a technology we have a moral obligation to use it for the betterment of our world, so therefore the positive possibilities of PGD absolutely warrant use by doctors to do their job, to heal and prevent suffering. We should not hinder our scientific pursuits because there is a possibility of misuse or morally reprehensible outcomes; it is against the exploratory spirit of science.

]]> By: Zac http://thetechnologicalcitizen.com/?p=1022&cpage=2#comment-540 Zac Fri, 11 Jun 2010 18:38:01 +0000 http://thetechnologicalcitizen.com/?p=1022#comment-540 I do not think that it is ethical to determine the sex of your baby. Its messing with something natural, and doing so for selfish reasons. I do not have issues with preventing diseases that would render most to lean unhappy lives. People should not need to get into the business with messing with nature in ways that are not needed, or that are not preventive of anything bad. I do not think that it is ethical to determine the sex of your baby. Its messing with something natural, and doing so for selfish reasons. I do not have issues with preventing diseases that would render most to lean unhappy lives. People should not need to get into the business with messing with nature in ways that are not needed, or that are not preventive of anything bad.

]]> By: onefatrunner http://thetechnologicalcitizen.com/?p=1022&cpage=2#comment-537 onefatrunner Fri, 04 Jun 2010 20:54:28 +0000 http://thetechnologicalcitizen.com/?p=1022#comment-537 PGD raises some interesting questions regarding how ethical of a procedure it is. To begin the technology itself should not be considered unethical, but rather how the technology is applied. No technology exists that could not be used in an unethical way. PGD is an amazing technology that helps to prevent the birth of children whose life would be limited by a medical condition. The patients and doctors should be allowed to help prevent medical conditions that would cripple a person and lead to distress within the family. However use of this technology must be limited. Though we are not at this point yet, in the future we may be able to use PGD to perform germline gene therapy. PGD should not be used to perform genetic enhancement on future generations as it takes away a piece of humanity. It could lead to discrimination of people with certain traits in the future. Another unethical use of PGD would be to select the gender of the child purely because the parents want a boy or girl. This is unethical as it implies that one gender is more desirable than the other. The use of PGD should be limited to medical purposes only. Anything further would lead to an abuse of the technology. PGD raises some interesting questions regarding how ethical of a procedure it is. To begin the technology itself should not be considered unethical, but rather how the technology is applied. No technology exists that could not be used in an unethical way. PGD is an amazing technology that helps to prevent the birth of children whose life would be limited by a medical condition. The patients and doctors should be allowed to help prevent medical conditions that would cripple a person and lead to distress within the family. However use of this technology must be limited. Though we are not at this point yet, in the future we may be able to use PGD to perform germline gene therapy. PGD should not be used to perform genetic enhancement on future generations as it takes away a piece of humanity. It could lead to discrimination of people with certain traits in the future. Another unethical use of PGD would be to select the gender of the child purely because the parents want a boy or girl. This is unethical as it implies that one gender is more desirable than the other. The use of PGD should be limited to medical purposes only. Anything further would lead to an abuse of the technology.

]]> By: HeidiC http://thetechnologicalcitizen.com/?p=1022&cpage=2#comment-528 HeidiC Wed, 12 May 2010 08:35:55 +0000 http://thetechnologicalcitizen.com/?p=1022#comment-528 This is a very tricky issue because I do see the potential good of screening a baby for a disease so that a child does not have to live to suffer with a disability. The ethics of this issue essentially comes down to if a fetus or embryo is a human being with equal rights as other human beings. If you base the status of being human on the ability to be rational then you could claim that all prenatal and preimplantation is ethical because we are not destroying any human life. However, what kind of a message would this send to people about those already born with disabilities or babies born to poor families with disabilities because the family could not afford advanced reproductive technologies? If PGD and other similar technologies became commonly used, we would start to see a lot of justice and equality issues appearing. Children born to poor families could be considered not as good as children born to rich families because the rich children were selected or had to pass screening before being born and the children from poor families were not. This would cause a large stratification of society and prejudices would become even more apparent. In order to solve this issue, we must analyze some of the basic assumptions of these technologies. Are disabilities a bad thing? Is it better for a child with a disability to have never been born in the first place? If we look at this issue from the perspective of the advancement of society, we may say that disabilities are a bad thing. However, ethically I do not think that we can determine which babies are better than others. Since we ourselves are human, we do not have the right or ability to judge other humans because any judgments would be based on social beliefs and values. Therefore, ethically, we cannot use advanced reproductive technologies to pick babies and we must come to the realization the suffering and disadvantage is part of the way the world operates. Any screening done cannot be done with the claim that the ethical thing is being done but instead with the claim that the screening will improve the advancement of society which may be used as a valid reason but it is not based in ethical principles. This is a very tricky issue because I do see the potential good of screening a baby for a disease so that a child does not have to live to suffer with a disability. The ethics of this issue essentially comes down to if a fetus or embryo is a human being with equal rights as other human beings. If you base the status of being human on the ability to be rational then you could claim that all prenatal and preimplantation is ethical because we are not destroying any human life. However, what kind of a message would this send to people about those already born with disabilities or babies born to poor families with disabilities because the family could not afford advanced reproductive technologies? If PGD and other similar technologies became commonly used, we would start to see a lot of justice and equality issues appearing. Children born to poor families could be considered not as good as children born to rich families because the rich children were selected or had to pass screening before being born and the children from poor families were not. This would cause a large stratification of society and prejudices would become even more apparent.
In order to solve this issue, we must analyze some of the basic assumptions of these technologies. Are disabilities a bad thing? Is it better for a child with a disability to have never been born in the first place? If we look at this issue from the perspective of the advancement of society, we may say that disabilities are a bad thing. However, ethically I do not think that we can determine which babies are better than others. Since we ourselves are human, we do not have the right or ability to judge other humans because any judgments would be based on social beliefs and values. Therefore, ethically, we cannot use advanced reproductive technologies to pick babies and we must come to the realization the suffering and disadvantage is part of the way the world operates. Any screening done cannot be done with the claim that the ethical thing is being done but instead with the claim that the screening will improve the advancement of society which may be used as a valid reason but it is not based in ethical principles.

]]> By: Alexandra http://thetechnologicalcitizen.com/?p=1022&cpage=1#comment-524 Alexandra Wed, 12 May 2010 05:55:22 +0000 http://thetechnologicalcitizen.com/?p=1022#comment-524 For the purpose of sex selection, PGD or PrGD appear to be ethically immoral because they have the potential to reverse the progress made for sexual equality or to disturb the natural equilibrium of males and females, if their popularity grows. However, I do believe that prenatal or preimplantation genetic diagnosis is ethically permissible for the predetermination of genetic diseases that would result in death or suffering. PGD could be used in way that would be a discrimination against the disabled, if an embryo had an abnormality that did not affect happiness or health. However, if an Utilitarian rational assessment of a lesser of two evils is made using case by case circumstances and stakeholders’ group not limited to the parents, then PGD can be an ethical good. I believe a decision group of doctors, parents, ethicists would have enough varied rationality to weigh the cost of abortion or embryonic disposal to the cost of a certain disease or abnormality. Also, I believe a Utilitarian greater happiness for society could be achieved because these types of diseases could be slowly removed from humankind’s genetic pool. While I believe abortion is a choice that is immoral in most cases, the principle of double effect would make termination of a pregnancy morally justifiable if PrGD or PGD diagnosed a 100% probability of a fatal or suffering disease. The “bad” effect would be the termination of a future human being, but the “good” effect would be the prevention of a life of suffering. For the purpose of sex selection, PGD or PrGD appear to be ethically immoral because they have the potential to reverse the progress made for sexual equality or to disturb the natural equilibrium of males and females, if their popularity grows. However, I do believe that prenatal or preimplantation genetic diagnosis is ethically permissible for the predetermination of genetic diseases that would result in death or suffering. PGD could be used in way that would be a discrimination against the disabled, if an embryo had an abnormality that did not affect happiness or health. However, if an Utilitarian rational assessment of a lesser of two evils is made using case by case circumstances and stakeholders’ group not limited to the parents, then PGD can be an ethical good. I believe a decision group of doctors, parents, ethicists would have enough varied rationality to weigh the cost of abortion or embryonic disposal to the cost of a certain disease or abnormality. Also, I believe a Utilitarian greater happiness for society could be achieved because these types of diseases could be slowly removed from humankind’s genetic pool. While I believe abortion is a choice that is immoral in most cases, the principle of double effect would make termination of a pregnancy morally justifiable if PrGD or PGD diagnosed a 100% probability of a fatal or suffering disease. The “bad” effect would be the termination of a future human being, but the “good” effect would be the prevention of a life of suffering.

]]> By: jcuadra http://thetechnologicalcitizen.com/?p=1022&cpage=1#comment-522 jcuadra Wed, 12 May 2010 05:43:13 +0000 http://thetechnologicalcitizen.com/?p=1022#comment-522 This article shows us that technology has touched every territory possible. Man kind has always dreamt of wanting to be able to pick and chose what type of child he/she would like to have, and now, it is possible. But can't we say that we are playing God then? I feel as though the days of excitement and pure joy for having a child have somewhat ceased due to such advancements as these. Parents are now using their unborn child as a tool, so basically using them as means to an end. I do not support this way of thinking because of the strong sense of guilt that I would imagine parents feel in doing this, and if one feels that strong sense of guilt, perhaps it is our inner voice telling us that it is not right. Yes it is possible to argue that you really are saving a life, but the means in how this is done, I'm sure does not sit well in some people's stomachs. This article shows us that technology has touched every territory possible. Man kind has always dreamt of wanting to be able to pick and chose what type of child he/she would like to have, and now, it is possible. But can’t we say that we are playing God then? I feel as though the days of excitement and pure joy for having a child have somewhat ceased due to such advancements as these. Parents are now using their unborn child as a tool, so basically using them as means to an end. I do not support this way of thinking because of the strong sense of guilt that I would imagine parents feel in doing this, and if one feels that strong sense of guilt, perhaps it is our inner voice telling us that it is not right. Yes it is possible to argue that you really are saving a life, but the means in how this is done, I’m sure does not sit well in some people’s stomachs.

]]> By: Paul Bruno http://thetechnologicalcitizen.com/?p=1022&cpage=1#comment-521 Paul Bruno Wed, 12 May 2010 05:38:04 +0000 http://thetechnologicalcitizen.com/?p=1022#comment-521 It is entirely unethical to use PGD in order to select the sex of a child due to the possibility of widespread infanticide if the practice gained larger acceptance. The only grounds in which sex selection would be ethically permissive would be if there was a reason for stopping the expression of a deadly, sex-linked genetic disease. The choice of gender in this scenario would outweigh the potential life-threatening issues associated with a genetic disease. It would be morally permissive to choose the sex of a child assuming that the resulting decision would stop the unnecessary suffering of another child. Although PGD does allow for the selection of “healthy,” non-genetically diseased babies, it also creates a stigma against the current “disabled” individuals in the world such as those people with down syndrome. Although it might create a certain stigma, parents need to consider whether or not they have a duty to present their child with the best chances for success and happiness at the expense of creating a stigma towards a minority group such as those with down syndrome. Also, the issue of cost for PGD also plays an issue for genetic screening since a majority of these genetic diseases are quite costly to families. With the current cost of PGD, it leaves out the majority of Americans without access to this technology which is significant because it is most likely “rich” Americans who have the money for PGD and also have the resources to take care of a genetically diseased child. This brings up the issue of the access to PGD technology for those Americans who would be most affected by the financial implications of a genetically diseased baby. It is entirely unethical to use PGD in order to select the sex of a child due to the possibility of widespread infanticide if the practice gained larger acceptance. The only grounds in which sex selection would be ethically permissive would be if there was a reason for stopping the expression of a deadly, sex-linked genetic disease. The choice of gender in this scenario would outweigh the potential life-threatening issues associated with a genetic disease. It would be morally permissive to choose the sex of a child assuming that the resulting decision would stop the unnecessary suffering of another child. Although PGD does allow for the selection of “healthy,” non-genetically diseased babies, it also creates a stigma against the current “disabled” individuals in the world such as those people with down syndrome. Although it might create a certain stigma, parents need to consider whether or not they have a duty to present their child with the best chances for success and happiness at the expense of creating a stigma towards a minority group such as those with down syndrome. Also, the issue of cost for PGD also plays an issue for genetic screening since a majority of these genetic diseases are quite costly to families. With the current cost of PGD, it leaves out the majority of Americans without access to this technology which is significant because it is most likely “rich” Americans who have the money for PGD and also have the resources to take care of a genetically diseased child. This brings up the issue of the access to PGD technology for those Americans who would be most affected by the financial implications of a genetically diseased baby.

]]> By: mbpadilla http://thetechnologicalcitizen.com/?p=1022&cpage=1#comment-519 mbpadilla Wed, 12 May 2010 05:28:39 +0000 http://thetechnologicalcitizen.com/?p=1022#comment-519 This is proof that technology has come long way since the invention of ultrasounds. Savior siblings, are brought into this world for the sole purpose to save/ help someone's life and although they were genetically modified I feel like, we would be doing the greatest good for the greatest amount of people if we all perceived the world as savior siblings. Even though the savior siblings will be brought up caring for someone else's life it does not mean they lose all autonomy it just means that they are leaving a more collectivist lifestyle. In all actuality I feel morally torn with the big picture surrounding 'designer babies'. In one sense I find it almost mandatory for someone to have the option of genetically modifying their baby if the family has a history genetically inherited harmful diseases such as alzheimers, through preimplantation genetic diagnosing. This would satisfies Ross's Prima facia duty of beneficence, by genetically modifying someone to not have a potential harm in their future. I am still torn on the issue because to what extent will the human population take 'designer babies'? Will they modify a baby to have all the physical characteristics that the parents want for their child or will they modify the genes that code for intelligence. Its a slippery slope that can go down the same pathway as plastic surgery, where the patient goes to see the doctor for personal reasons not just for medical issues. This is proof that technology has come long way since the invention of ultrasounds.
Savior siblings, are brought into this world for the sole purpose to save/ help someone’s life and although they were genetically modified I feel like, we would be doing the greatest good for the greatest amount of people if we all perceived the world as savior siblings. Even though the savior siblings will be brought up caring for someone else’s life it does not mean they lose all autonomy it just means that they are leaving a more collectivist lifestyle.

In all actuality I feel morally torn with the big picture surrounding ‘designer babies’. In one sense I find it almost mandatory for someone to have the option of genetically modifying their baby if the family has a history genetically inherited harmful diseases such as alzheimers, through preimplantation genetic diagnosing. This would satisfies Ross’s Prima facia duty of beneficence, by genetically modifying someone to not have a potential harm in their future. I am still torn on the issue because to what extent will the human population take ‘designer babies’? Will they modify a baby to have all the physical characteristics that the parents want for their child or will they modify the genes that code for intelligence. Its a slippery slope that can go down the same pathway as plastic surgery, where the patient goes to see the doctor for personal reasons not just for medical issues.

]]> By: Margaret http://thetechnologicalcitizen.com/?p=1022&cpage=1#comment-517 Margaret Wed, 12 May 2010 04:44:02 +0000 http://thetechnologicalcitizen.com/?p=1022#comment-517 The article Professor Nelson presents is a scary awakening to how much we have taken health matters into our own hands and removed the natural forces involved. As it stands, PGD allows the parents to choose if they want to have a baby, have it healthy or not, and what the sex of the child will be. Rather than letting the genes fall where they lie, they have completely taken power away from nature and handed it to the parents. Not being particularly catholic, I think the Roman Catholic Church and their beliefs about natural law have this correct. They reason God intended humans to create life following the moral order of creation, therefore it is the parent’s obligation to maintain any child they create. Yet by placing parents in the driver’s seat, PGD is going against nature and “playing God” by discarding unsatisfactory embryos. Is it wrong for a family to want to know if they will have a disabled baby or not, no. But where humanity is dangerously playing with fire is using IVF and then deciding which desired children will live. Also where is the perseverance of human dignity? If a couple is picking what sex they want, as Professor Nelson said, it again becomes a matter of which sex is more desirable, and thusly profitable to have. By using such techniques as these, we are going against nature, trying to force something which potentially shouldn’t occur. A parent my want a blonde hair, blue eye child, but no matter what it is still their child, and they should take ownership in what they created. The article Professor Nelson presents is a scary awakening to how much we have taken health matters into our own hands and removed the natural forces involved. As it stands, PGD allows the parents to choose if they want to have a baby, have it healthy or not, and what the sex of the child will be. Rather than letting the genes fall where they lie, they have completely taken power away from nature and handed it to the parents. Not being particularly catholic, I think the Roman Catholic Church and their beliefs about natural law have this correct. They reason God intended humans to create life following the moral order of creation, therefore it is the parent’s obligation to maintain any child they create. Yet by placing parents in the driver’s seat, PGD is going against nature and “playing God” by discarding unsatisfactory embryos. Is it wrong for a family to want to know if they will have a disabled baby or not, no. But where humanity is dangerously playing with fire is using IVF and then deciding which desired children will live. Also where is the perseverance of human dignity? If a couple is picking what sex they want, as Professor Nelson said, it again becomes a matter of which sex is more desirable, and thusly profitable to have. By using such techniques as these, we are going against nature, trying to force something which potentially shouldn’t occur. A parent my want a blonde hair, blue eye child, but no matter what it is still their child, and they should take ownership in what they created.

]]> By: Alex Harkins http://thetechnologicalcitizen.com/?p=1022&cpage=1#comment-515 Alex Harkins Wed, 12 May 2010 04:41:45 +0000 http://thetechnologicalcitizen.com/?p=1022#comment-515 If technology has given doctors the power to help fetus’ avoid horribly, painful and life-ending diseases, I feel they have the right and obligation to take action. However, like many topics similar to PGD, we must be careful about how far this technology is stretched and to what means it is used. If used to insure the gender of the baby in order to avoid a disease, it is one thing; if parents decide the baby is going to have blue eyes, that’s another. At some point, ethical issues arise dealing with playing God; some think practicing PGD, if misused, can encroach on God’s responsibilities. Unfortunately, I believe the unethical direction towards more people creating ‘designer babies’ is set and irreversible. However, if used in a proper, moral way, PGD is an incredible step for humanity. If technology has given doctors the power to help fetus’ avoid horribly, painful and life-ending diseases, I feel they have the right and obligation to take action. However, like many topics similar to PGD, we must be careful about how far this technology is stretched and to what means it is used. If used to insure the gender of the baby in order to avoid a disease, it is one thing; if parents decide the baby is going to have blue eyes, that’s another. At some point, ethical issues arise dealing with playing God; some think practicing PGD, if misused, can encroach on God’s responsibilities. Unfortunately, I believe the unethical direction towards more people creating ‘designer babies’ is set and irreversible. However, if used in a proper, moral way, PGD is an incredible step for humanity.

]]>