Answer the questions at the end of the case. Argue a position you don't endorse! :) Respond to a classmate's post (your real view or your temporary one).
Heather’s decision not to be tested for Huntington’s gene is a wise one. She should have the right to choose what is best for her and her family even if it will affect them and the family’s future.
Yes, the genetic counselor’s suggestion does provide a satisfactory solution to the problem. Disposing of the defective embryos and only implanting the perfect one will solve the problem. Even though the family will live with the burden that they have a 50% chance of losing their wife and mother at a young age, at least the chosen embryo will live a perfect healthy life.
No, they are not morally equal. They are both morally acceptable, but not equal. Disposing of an embryo or throwing away a baby that is growing in a petri dish is more morally acceptable than aborting or killing a baby that is growing inside its mother. Even though if given the opportunity for both scenarios, they would both become human beings.
I recognize that you are coming from a standpoint in which you don't fully agree, but one part of me agrees that not getting tested is not a bad decision. beside the future children she may have, what good would it do her to have the truth. If she does have the trait then she will live waiting for symptoms to start. however, if she doesn't she would be able to breath a huge sign of relief. I feel this decision will be different for everyone.
I had a feeling that the majority would argue this way. I believe if you want to bring a child into this world you should try to make sure what your health status is and also to know if you are going to pass it on to your child. I believe you it to your kid to do that.
Having you argue something you don't believe just delights me. Do you see how you are getting better at it? It is hard but valuable for several reasons: it strengthens your own position; it makes you empathetic with others & improves your moral imaginations; it is just a good intellectual exercise. Well done, you all!
I do see both sides. I can understand someone being frightened of what their child might have to suffer through, and wanting to avoid that. However, it's likelihood, it's probabilities, it's "a chance". How can you not let your child come to existence because something might happen. They have been incorrect many times, and will be. Also, who says that children who wind up being diagnosed with something, and only here a short time, aren't serving their entire purpose of creation in that short time. However, with Huntington's, he wouldn't know probably until he was 30-50, and would have lived a pretty awesome several decades by then. I pose a question here: if you knew you were going to be diagnosed with a fatal illness this year, would you want to give up you life to this point, and just never have existed. Would any of us choose our parents electing to not create us because we were going to get sick and possibly die this year????
Is heather's not getting tested wise? Due to the fact that there is no prevention or cure, I feel as though getting tested really suits no purpose. Knowing that you have a terminal illness would only cause worry, stress and anxiety.
The solution of the genetic counselor to do preimplantation testing is probably the solution that suits the moral dilemmas of the couple most. The one concern that they would potentially have is that of the unused embryos. not to mention, if they ever want to conceive again they will have to take the same precautions.
No, they are not morally equal. destruction of an embryo is not the same as caring a fetus and having an abortion. I feel society as a whole looks at them as two separate situations all together.
Perhaps a solution or way for them to save a little money could be to freeze some of the unaffected embryos. That way if they want to have another child they can just defrost one. (I hope this is read with all the sarcasm imagined poured all over it!)
1. Is Heather D's decision not to be tested for the Huntington's gene a wise one? Her decision not to be tested is a decision she made for herself. It is her decision of what is best for her right now even though this decision may affect her future generations. 2. Does the genetic counselor's suggestion provide a satisfactory solution to the problem? This is a satisfactory solution. It protects Heather's decision not to know and it kills the embryos that are affected with the defective gene. The embryos not affected with grow and mature without the chance of contracting Huntington's. The children of Heather D. may have the misfortune of losing their mother along with their grandfather, but that is a risk Heather D. is willing to take by her decision not to know. 3. Is preimplantation genetic diagnosis and the discarding of affected embryos morally equivalent to prenatal diagnosis and selective abortion? They are morally equivalent and basically the same. The are both about discarding defective embryos which will in turn become defective people.
When it comes to the genetic counselor I wonder if this would actually ever be proposed? I do belive it is the same as selective abortion you are just aborting the child before it is in the mothers womb.
I think genetic counselors are trained to be objective and lay all the options out on the table. While it seems that a lot of you/us think that not-implanting is morally problematic, there are many people who view that option as morally permissible. The genetic counselor isn't to pre-judge those actions.
Good point Alex, discarding an embryo because of a genetic imperfection is the same as selective abortion. I wonder if the father, who is against abortion, has this same awareness. Although, another point regarding this type of selective abortion, it takes away the personal pain to the mother and the father being done in a discreet way that they parents may not even have to be told. It boils down to the same thing, which seems to be morally equivalent. Maybe not socially equivalent.
Good point Alex, discarding an embryo because of a genetic imperfection is the same as selective abortion. I wonder if the father, who is against abortion, has this same awareness. Although, another point regarding this type of selective abortion, it takes away the personal pain to the mother and the father being done in a discreet way that they parents may not even have to be told. It boils down to the same thing, which seems to be morally equivalent. Maybe not socially equivalent.
I think ethically that the genetic counselor would be upfront and honest. It would not be wise for them to with hold any information. They are in part responsible for the decisions that their patients make. I am sure they would not want the backlash from not being honest.
1. I do believe Heather's decsicion is a wise one she has her own perogitive to be or not be tested. She is taking ownership of her own healthcare and I feel that is what so many of us should do and we don't. 2. I belive that the solution the genetic counselor provided is the best one. He addresses the husbands objection to abortion and Heather's concern about the child not getting Hunigtion's and thats what his job is as a couenslor to provide the best possible solution. 3. I don't believe that selecting a certian embyro and discarding the embryo's with huntingtons disease is wrong because you have not implanted it into the mothers womb you are giving the baby the best chance of being healthy and living a life free from Huntingtons. If they were aborting the pregnancy when the child was in the mothers womb I think that would be morally wrong to implant the child into the mothers womb and then abort the pregnancy.
Coming from a standpoint that is not my own: Heather's decision to not be tested is not a wise one. If she is planning on creating a future family with her husband she has the responsibility to make sure that she will be alive to see her child grow. She also has the responsibility to her unborn child. If she has the disease she may potentially pass that along and knowingly cause harm and an early death to her offspring. Yes, the suggestion is a safe solution to the problem. If Heather D does not know how many embryos are collected and discarded, she will not have to carry the guilt of how many embryos could have been carrying the gene and she will not have the burden of knowing if she is carrying the gene or not. This option also respects her husband’s moral opposition to abortion. No, these two procedures are different and carry different moral weight. With selective abortion you decided to terminate once the embryo has already implanted and growing inside you. When discarding an affected embryo, it has not yet been implanted and the petri dish may be discarded without any type of medical procedure for the mother. She does not have to make the decision to abort, and she doesn’t have to be told which ones if any were affected.
Great points, Jocelyn. I agree that it is fine for her to not be tested. After all, presence of the gene is only a genetic likelihood, not a confirmation that the person will develop Huntington's. Interestingly enough, rarely there are people with Huntington's where both parents did not have the gene. Maybe to be safe, we should all quit procreating so our children won't have the chance of having a genetic condition. I can't help but wonder if we did not procreate, or we discarded embryos and fetuses, because of "possible" genetic conditions, how many humans who have made differences in other's lives, and possible huge differences in society (like they've cured a disease or saved people's lives)would not exist and how much things here would be affected. I wonder, let's say, if one of the heroes on United flight 93 had a mother who was tested and showed she had the gene for Huntington's, so she either didn't procreate, or she used selective implantation, or prenatal diagnosis and selective abortion. How would history be now? If that person was the person who orchestrated the attacks on the hijackers, if he wasn't there to lead the attacks, would the high-jackers have executed their plan and crashed the plane into the Whitehouse, or another major target. And in that place, maybe a key person who was going to cure cancer, or HIV, or prevent the next world war was killed... then hundreds of thousands who would have been saved, dies because of how nature changed the future at that one moment. We sometimes have to let chance happen. I actually had a friend who had prenatal testing, it showed 99% likelihood of Down's, they were also concerned about other genetic conditions, they steered her toward selective abortion. Luckily, she chose against it, and has a very healthy son who is amazing. Let's say he does develop Huntington's when he is 40-50, I am thinking those 40-50 years with him (plus the 15-20 after his diagnosis) would be far more worth it than not having him here. Also, it's likely by the time Heather's baby would be old enough to develop Huntington's cure via the CRISPER technology.
* by the time Heather's baby was old enough to develop Huntington's, it is likely that the scientists will have developed the cure for Huntington's via the CRISPER technology, or at least some advanced treatment. Then this baby that might not have come to fruition will live to be a ripe old age with minimal issues.
I also agree that's it's fine for her to choose not to be tested. Not sure what good it could actually bring. If she were positive, then she still only has half a chance of getting it, and waiting for it to happen. Watching for symptoms as you reach middle age could be agonizing. Otherwise , if she doesn't know at all, she can just live her life. Sure it would be in the back of her mind, but maybe not the forefront. And since there is no cure, it doesn't serve a purpose to know. Likewise, bringing a child into the world, comes with great mystery. It is no longer a surprise as for knowing the gender as it was before advanced ultra sound, but compared to genetic testing, prenatal or preimplantaion, it puts a burden of knowledge on the parent that should well be left alone. Shelley you make excellent points when discussing the beauty of a handicapped child developing into a wonderful human being that brings joy to others and is capable of giving to society in ways that people could not give credit to anyone who is genetically altered. Then, who knows. statistics and testing may give results that never come to their expected end. Life is precious in all forms, and people should be respected at all stages, genetically perfect or not so perfect.
Thank you, Gloria. My true viewpoint agrees with you completely. My 11-year-old and I discuss ethics nightly. He loves giving his view on our discussions. I just asked him if he knew he was going to get a terrible disease when he was 40, that would cause him much pain and suffering for several years then he would die, would he give up his existence to avoid it. He thought I was nuts. He said he would want to live those 40 years not knowing he might get it, then he would "YOLO" how ever many years he had left, and do as much as he could until he died. Again, it's no guarantee they will get it.
1.) Heather D’s decision to not be tested for the Huntington gene is not a wise decision at all. As supported by Utilitarianism, she is bound to the responsibility to minimize pain for the greatest number. Knowing her genetic makeup, and the likelihood of her child having the gene will allow her to make an informed decision on what genetic steps she might take to alter the course so she can assure she is having a perfect baby. We have the technology now to detect things and fix them, so she should take full advantage of it.
2.) The genetic counsellor’s suggestion is a very satisfactory solution to the problem. The theory of consequentialism states that we must look at Heather D’s ultimate happiness and allow her actions if they maximize that happiness and pleasure for her. By creating several embryos, then testing them for the Huntington’s gene, and only using the ones without that gene, Heather’s happiness will be maximized, thus those actions are permissible. She will not know how many, or if any, of these embryos are quietly discarded, so that makes it even better.
3.) I think both preimplantation genetic diagnosis and the discarding of the affected embryos, and prenatal diagnosis with selective abortion are both morally sound equally. They both uphold ethical steps as supported by the theories above. Heather just has to select which option is the best for her. These are only embryos and fetuses after all, it’s not like they are living babies. It’s most important for Heather D. and her husband to know they are going to have a healthy baby without a chance of having Huntington’s. It doesn’t really matter that although the embryo might have the gene, the baby might never get Huntington’s. It’s much more important for us to use genetic engineering to it’s fullest potential and prevent any health weaknesses in our offspring.
Brand-Ballard, J., Degrazia, D., Mappes, T. (2011). Biomedical Ethics 7th ed. New York, NY. MCGraw Hill.
Shelley, great way to use the theories to support you non beliefs. This assignment was difficult in trying to find a way to back a belief that is not yours. The fact that we do have technology to make "perfect" babies is a little scary. I love the tiny imperfections my son has. Every tiny freckle on his little face makes him unique. I love while waiting for a baby to be born we can all sit and guess what color the hair will be, or whose eyes he/she will get. If we already knew, it would take some of the magic out of a delivery.
I agree with you on the preimplantation genetic diagnosis. I would not want to have a child who could then have the disease. I agree that they are not babies. I would not use this technology to create super babies but to end genetic disorders.
When arguing a case that I do not support, I can say that in answer to the first question whether Heather has made a wise decision to not be tested, that she has not. If she has a 50% chance of getting Huntington's, then she should use advanced medical technology to find this out. I think that it's important for her to have this knowledge especially in the light of future plans for children. The second question asks if the genetic counselor provides a satisfactory solution to the problem. Her job is to provide various options, and this is especially one that could solve the problem. It takes into consideration that Heather does not want to bring a child into the world that could develop Huntington's disease in it's lifetime, and also her husband's stance against abortion. As for the question if preimplantation genetic diagnosis and the discarding of affected embryos being morally equivalent to prenatal diagnosis and selective abortion, I would say yes it is morally equivalent. Advanced scientific technology has allowed us to have choices as never before. This can enable people to prepare for their future children and offer them the best they can. Prenatal diagnosis and selective abortion is another way people can choose the children they bring into this world.
Against my views... 1) Heather's choice not to have prenatal testing is a wise one. I understand it is her wishes not to know even if it concerns her future baby. 2) The genetic counselor has made a solution that would benefit the patients wishes even if it entails discarding an unnecessary amount of embryos. 3) This process would not be equivalent to prenatal diagnosis and selective abortion.
I think her decision not to be tested is immature. The outcome does not change. I would want to know if I was a carrier for the risk factors alone. Her decision not to find out seems selfish. It would be of importance to the husband. If she goes to the testing and found not to be a carrier than they can have a natural conception and child birth. This would also be a huge cost savings for them. I think that the genetic counselor idea is great if she was found to be a carrier. She would have the opportunity to have a child without the risk factor of Huntington disease. The counselor gave her options with little risk to any of the participants. The discard of the affected embryos unfortunately is a hard decision. The decision would belong to the parents. I think going in to the procedure they would of already been prepared to make the decision. I like the option better than selective abortion. It would also be an effective way to lose the gene from the family tree.
Arguing from a position I don’t endorse…
ReplyDeleteHeather’s decision not to be tested for Huntington’s gene is a wise one. She should have the right to choose what is best for her and her family even if it will affect them and the family’s future.
Yes, the genetic counselor’s suggestion does provide a satisfactory solution to the problem. Disposing of the defective embryos and only implanting the perfect one will solve the problem. Even though the family will live with the burden that they have a 50% chance of losing their wife and mother at a young age, at least the chosen embryo will live a perfect healthy life.
No, they are not morally equal. They are both morally acceptable, but not equal. Disposing of an embryo or throwing away a baby that is growing in a petri dish is more morally acceptable than aborting or killing a baby that is growing inside its mother. Even though if given the opportunity for both scenarios, they would both become human beings.
I recognize that you are coming from a standpoint in which you don't fully agree, but one part of me agrees that not getting tested is not a bad decision. beside the future children she may have, what good would it do her to have the truth. If she does have the trait then she will live waiting for symptoms to start. however, if she doesn't she would be able to breath a huge sign of relief. I feel this decision will be different for everyone.
DeleteI had a feeling that the majority would argue this way. I believe if you want to bring a child into this world you should try to make sure what your health status is and also to know if you are going to pass it on to your child. I believe you it to your kid to do that.
DeleteYeah, this was a tough one. I feel that unless actually in this situation I can honestly say I'm not sure what I would want to do.
DeleteYeah, this was a tough one. I feel that unless actually in this situation I can honestly say I'm not sure what I would want to do.
DeleteHaving you argue something you don't believe just delights me. Do you see how you are getting better at it? It is hard but valuable for several reasons: it strengthens your own position; it makes you empathetic with others & improves your moral imaginations; it is just a good intellectual exercise. Well done, you all!
DeleteI do see both sides. I can understand someone being frightened of what their child might have to suffer through, and wanting to avoid that. However, it's likelihood, it's probabilities, it's "a chance". How can you not let your child come to existence because something might happen. They have been incorrect many times, and will be. Also, who says that children who wind up being diagnosed with something, and only here a short time, aren't serving their entire purpose of creation in that short time. However, with Huntington's, he wouldn't know probably until he was 30-50, and would have lived a pretty awesome several decades by then. I pose a question here: if you knew you were going to be diagnosed with a fatal illness this year, would you want to give up you life to this point, and just never have existed. Would any of us choose our parents electing to not create us because we were going to get sick and possibly die this year????
DeleteIt is so hard to even argue about something you don't believe in!
DeleteIs heather's not getting tested wise? Due to the fact that there is no prevention or cure, I feel as though getting tested really suits no purpose. Knowing that you have a terminal illness would only cause worry, stress and anxiety.
ReplyDeleteThe solution of the genetic counselor to do preimplantation testing is probably the solution that suits the moral dilemmas of the couple most. The one concern that they would potentially have is that of the unused embryos. not to mention, if they ever want to conceive again they will have to take the same precautions.
No, they are not morally equal. destruction of an embryo is not the same as caring a fetus and having an abortion. I feel society as a whole looks at them as two separate situations all together.
Great points! It's so hard to argue the opposite of what we actually believe and write about it clearly.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeletePerhaps a solution or way for them to save a little money could be to freeze some of the unaffected embryos. That way if they want to have another child they can just defrost one. (I hope this is read with all the sarcasm imagined poured all over it!)
DeleteThat is a good point of view Jocelyn, never thought about that. Could be a solution for future problems.
DeleteMy argument that I do not endorse...
ReplyDelete1. Is Heather D's decision not to be tested for the Huntington's gene a wise one?
Her decision not to be tested is a decision she made for herself. It is her decision of what is best for her right now even though this decision may affect her future generations.
2. Does the genetic counselor's suggestion provide a satisfactory solution to the problem?
This is a satisfactory solution. It protects Heather's decision not to know and it kills the embryos that are affected with the defective gene. The embryos not affected with grow and mature without the chance of contracting Huntington's. The children of Heather D. may have the misfortune of losing their mother along with their grandfather, but that is a risk Heather D. is willing to take by her decision not to know.
3. Is preimplantation genetic diagnosis and the discarding of affected embryos morally equivalent to prenatal diagnosis and selective abortion?
They are morally equivalent and basically the same. The are both about discarding defective embryos which will in turn become defective people.
When it comes to the genetic counselor I wonder if this would actually ever be proposed? I do belive it is the same as selective abortion you are just aborting the child before it is in the mothers womb.
DeleteI think genetic counselors are trained to be objective and lay all the options out on the table. While it seems that a lot of you/us think that not-implanting is morally problematic, there are many people who view that option as morally permissible. The genetic counselor isn't to pre-judge those actions.
DeleteGood point Alex, discarding an embryo because of a genetic imperfection is the same as selective abortion. I wonder if the father, who is against abortion, has this same awareness. Although, another point regarding this type of selective abortion, it takes away the personal pain to the mother and the father being done in a discreet way that they parents may not even have to be told. It boils down to the same thing, which seems to be morally equivalent. Maybe not socially equivalent.
DeleteGood point Alex, discarding an embryo because of a genetic imperfection is the same as selective abortion. I wonder if the father, who is against abortion, has this same awareness. Although, another point regarding this type of selective abortion, it takes away the personal pain to the mother and the father being done in a discreet way that they parents may not even have to be told. It boils down to the same thing, which seems to be morally equivalent. Maybe not socially equivalent.
DeleteI think ethically that the genetic counselor would be upfront and honest. It would not be wise for them to with hold any information. They are in part responsible for the decisions that their patients make. I am sure they would not want the backlash from not being honest.
Delete1. I do believe Heather's decsicion is a wise one she has her own perogitive to be or not be tested. She is taking ownership of her own healthcare and I feel that is what so many of us should do and we don't.
ReplyDelete2. I belive that the solution the genetic counselor provided is the best one. He addresses the husbands objection to abortion and Heather's concern about the child not getting Hunigtion's and thats what his job is as a couenslor to provide the best possible solution.
3. I don't believe that selecting a certian embyro and discarding the embryo's with huntingtons disease is wrong because you have not implanted it into the mothers womb you are giving the baby the best chance of being healthy and living a life free from Huntingtons. If they were aborting the pregnancy when the child was in the mothers womb I think that would be morally wrong to implant the child into the mothers womb and then abort the pregnancy.
Coming from a standpoint that is not my own:
ReplyDeleteHeather's decision to not be tested is not a wise one. If she is planning on creating a future family with her husband she has the responsibility to make sure that she will be alive to see her child grow. She also has the responsibility to her unborn child. If she has the disease she may potentially pass that along and knowingly cause harm and an early death to her offspring.
Yes, the suggestion is a safe solution to the problem. If Heather D does not know how many embryos are collected and discarded, she will not have to carry the guilt of how many embryos could have been carrying the gene and she will not have the burden of knowing if she is carrying the gene or not. This option also respects her husband’s moral opposition to abortion.
No, these two procedures are different and carry different moral weight. With selective abortion you decided to terminate once the embryo has already implanted and growing inside you. When discarding an affected embryo, it has not yet been implanted and the petri dish may be discarded without any type of medical procedure for the mother. She does not have to make the decision to abort, and she doesn’t have to be told which ones if any were affected.
Great points, Jocelyn. I agree that it is fine for her to not be tested. After all, presence of the gene is only a genetic likelihood, not a confirmation that the person will develop Huntington's. Interestingly enough, rarely there are people with Huntington's where both parents did not have the gene. Maybe to be safe, we should all quit procreating so our children won't have the chance of having a genetic condition.
DeleteI can't help but wonder if we did not procreate, or we discarded embryos and fetuses, because of "possible" genetic conditions, how many humans who have made differences in other's lives, and possible huge differences in society (like they've cured a disease or saved people's lives)would not exist and how much things here would be affected. I wonder, let's say, if one of the heroes on United flight 93 had a mother who was tested and showed she had the gene for Huntington's, so she either didn't procreate, or she used selective implantation, or prenatal diagnosis and selective abortion. How would history be now? If that person was the person who orchestrated the attacks on the hijackers, if he wasn't there to lead the attacks, would the high-jackers have executed their plan and crashed the plane into the Whitehouse, or another major target. And in that place, maybe a key person who was going to cure cancer, or HIV, or prevent the next world war was killed... then hundreds of thousands who would have been saved, dies because of how nature changed the future at that one moment. We sometimes have to let chance happen.
I actually had a friend who had prenatal testing, it showed 99% likelihood of Down's, they were also concerned about other genetic conditions, they steered her toward selective abortion. Luckily, she chose against it, and has a very healthy son who is amazing. Let's say he does develop Huntington's when he is 40-50, I am thinking those 40-50 years with him (plus the 15-20 after his diagnosis) would be far more worth it than not having him here. Also, it's likely by the time Heather's baby would be old enough to develop Huntington's cure via the CRISPER technology.
* by the time Heather's baby was old enough to develop Huntington's, it is likely that the scientists will have developed the cure for Huntington's via the CRISPER technology, or at least some advanced treatment. Then this baby that might not have come to fruition will live to be a ripe old age with minimal issues.
DeleteI also agree that's it's fine for her to choose not to be tested. Not sure what good it could actually bring. If she were positive, then she still only has half a chance of getting it, and waiting for it to happen. Watching for symptoms as you reach middle age could be agonizing. Otherwise , if she doesn't know at all, she can just live her life. Sure it would be in the back of her mind, but maybe not the forefront. And since there is no cure, it doesn't serve a purpose to know. Likewise, bringing a child into the world, comes with great mystery. It is no longer a surprise as for knowing the gender as it was before advanced ultra sound, but compared to genetic testing, prenatal or preimplantaion, it puts a burden of knowledge on the parent that should well be left alone. Shelley you make excellent points when discussing the beauty of a handicapped child developing into a wonderful human being that brings joy to others and is capable of giving to society in ways that people could not give credit to anyone who is genetically altered. Then, who knows. statistics and testing may give results that never come to their expected end. Life is precious in all forms, and people should be respected at all stages, genetically perfect or not so perfect.
DeleteThank you, Gloria. My true viewpoint agrees with you completely. My 11-year-old and I discuss ethics nightly. He loves giving his view on our discussions. I just asked him if he knew he was going to get a terrible disease when he was 40, that would cause him much pain and suffering for several years then he would die, would he give up his existence to avoid it. He thought I was nuts. He said he would want to live those 40 years not knowing he might get it, then he would "YOLO" how ever many years he had left, and do as much as he could until he died.
DeleteAgain, it's no guarantee they will get it.
1.) Heather D’s decision to not be tested for the Huntington gene is not a wise decision at all. As supported by Utilitarianism, she is bound to the responsibility to minimize pain for the greatest number. Knowing her genetic makeup, and the likelihood of her child having the gene will allow her to make an informed decision on what genetic steps she might take to alter the course so she can assure she is having a perfect baby. We have the technology now to detect things and fix them, so she should take full advantage of it.
ReplyDelete2.) The genetic counsellor’s suggestion is a very satisfactory solution to the problem. The theory of consequentialism states that we must look at Heather D’s ultimate happiness and allow her actions if they maximize that happiness and pleasure for her. By creating several embryos, then testing them for the Huntington’s gene, and only using the ones without that gene, Heather’s happiness will be maximized, thus those actions are permissible. She will not know how many, or if any, of these embryos are quietly discarded, so that makes it even better.
3.) I think both preimplantation genetic diagnosis and the discarding of the affected embryos, and prenatal diagnosis with selective abortion are both morally sound equally. They both uphold ethical steps as supported by the theories above. Heather just has to select which option is the best for her. These are only embryos and fetuses after all, it’s not like they are living babies. It’s most important for Heather D. and her husband to know they are going to have a healthy baby without a chance of having Huntington’s. It doesn’t really matter that although the embryo might have the gene, the baby might never get Huntington’s. It’s much more important for us to use genetic engineering to it’s fullest potential and prevent any health weaknesses in our offspring.
Brand-Ballard, J., Degrazia, D., Mappes, T. (2011). Biomedical Ethics 7th ed. New York, NY. MCGraw Hill.
Shelley, great way to use the theories to support you non beliefs. This assignment was difficult in trying to find a way to back a belief that is not yours. The fact that we do have technology to make "perfect" babies is a little scary. I love the tiny imperfections my son has. Every tiny freckle on his little face makes him unique. I love while waiting for a baby to be born we can all sit and guess what color the hair will be, or whose eyes he/she will get. If we already knew, it would take some of the magic out of a delivery.
DeleteI agree with you on the preimplantation genetic diagnosis. I would not want to have a child who could then have the disease. I agree that they are not babies. I would not use this technology to create super babies but to end genetic disorders.
DeleteWhen arguing a case that I do not support, I can say that in answer to the first question whether Heather has made a wise decision to not be tested, that she has not. If she has a 50% chance of getting Huntington's, then she should use advanced medical technology to find this out. I think that it's important for her to have this knowledge especially in the light of future plans for children. The second question asks if the genetic counselor provides a satisfactory solution to the problem. Her job is to provide various options, and this is especially one that could solve the problem. It takes into consideration that Heather does not want to bring a child into the world that could develop Huntington's disease in it's lifetime, and also her husband's stance against abortion. As for the question if preimplantation genetic diagnosis and the discarding of affected embryos being morally equivalent to prenatal diagnosis and selective abortion, I would say yes it is morally equivalent. Advanced scientific technology has allowed us to have choices as never before. This can enable people to prepare for their future children and offer them the best they can. Prenatal diagnosis and selective abortion is another way people can choose the children they bring into this world.
ReplyDeleteAgainst my views...
ReplyDelete1) Heather's choice not to have prenatal testing is a wise one. I understand it is her wishes not to know even if it concerns her future baby.
2) The genetic counselor has made a solution that would benefit the patients wishes even if it entails discarding an unnecessary amount of embryos.
3) This process would not be equivalent to prenatal diagnosis and selective abortion.
I think her decision not to be tested is immature. The outcome does not change. I would want to know if I was a carrier for the risk factors alone. Her decision not to find out seems selfish. It would be of importance to the husband. If she goes to the testing and found not to be a carrier than they can have a natural conception and child birth. This would also be a huge cost savings for them.
ReplyDeleteI think that the genetic counselor idea is great if she was found to be a carrier. She would have the opportunity to have a child without the risk factor of Huntington disease. The counselor gave her options with little risk to any of the participants.
The discard of the affected embryos unfortunately is a hard decision. The decision would belong to the parents. I think going in to the procedure they would of already been prepared to make the decision. I like the option better than selective abortion. It would also be an effective way to lose the gene from the family tree.