I think that Dr. M should follow with the wishes of the couple. Wether it is IVF or the embryo transfer it is still a manipulation of the natural process. However, a couple who cannot get pregnant the natural way should be able to achieve this through scientific procedures if they want. I do believe it is weird to think that they can have children genetically identical years apart, but unethical, no. We do procedures all the time that are not natural, but if the science is there and we are benefiting others, why not. Some see it an ethical delema regarding the other embryos is not used and destroyed in some of these cases. A statement in the reading that spoke to me regarding this was "We never exhisted as embryos, in which case killing a embryo does not kill someone like you or me, but merely prevents one of us from existing" (McMahan, 2011). This doctor is merely maximizing pleasure and happiness as he helps them to achieve something they otherwise cannot.
Brand-Ballard, J., Degrazia, D., & Mappes,T. (2011). Biomedical Ethics. Seventh edition. The McGraw-Hill Conpanies, Inc. p 508
I agree Ashley, it does manipulate the natural process but like you said, if an infertile couple is longing to have a child, why not utilize this science. I personally cannot imagine having twin children of different ages, I would be afraid of the effects it may have on the children later on.
I feel like sometimes when couples aren't able to get pregnant it is an opportunity for them to adopt. They end up spending more money often times on procedures that fail more times than they are successful. I know adoption isn't for everyone though.
I agree Alex. Adoption should always be considered in cases like this. There are expenses related to both, but there are many, many foster children looking for good homes who could possibly be available for adoption.
I agree adoption should be considered. I know that it is a difficult process for some couples though and then having a child that maybe they don't get young enough to raise it the way they want and they have to start over and instill their values and morals in them and try and raise them it is a difficult challenge if you don't get a child at a pretty young age.
I also think that it does interrupt the natural process however if this is something that they want and we have accessibility to the science and knowledge why are we not using it. I do not have kids so it is hard for me, but I agree with Erin, I would be worried about the effects it would have on my children later in life
Case 38 I believe Dr. M. should help the couple out according to their wishes, as long as he doesn't hold any personal moral objective. The couple, in conjunction with their specialist, Dr. M. has been trying several years to start a family. This last attempt at IVF has failed and the couple being in their late 30's, feel this may be their absolute last hope. What they ask is the one remaining embryo be utilized to offer them a better chance. Embryo splitting may be considered a form of cloning, but it is considered less problematic than a SCNT type of cloning when used as part of the process of IVF and embryonic transfer for a couple to conceive a long awaited child. When further discussion of this same couple wishing to use the same embryo for future children, you begin to hit a moral fence. Although it isn't along the same lines as SCNT which denies the combination of two parents, it still raises the moral dilemma of delayed twinning. My opinion is that if they are successful at this last effort to conceive, they should accept this child as a blessing and leave the idea alone as to trying again in the future for a duplicate child. This raises a moral dilemma that changes the original quest.
Brand-Ballard, J., Degrazia, D., & Mappes,T. (2011). Biomedical Ethics. Seventh edition. The McGraw-Hill Conpanies, Inc. p 530.
This most likely would be the couple's last hope of conceiving a child of their own. I agree that if they do successfully conceive a healthy baby with this attempt that they should leave well enough alone. I think there could potentially be negative effects on the children later on in life if they proceed with "delayed twinning".
Delayed Twinning 1. Should Dr. T act in accordance with the wishes of the couple? Yes, and no. I think that it is perfectly acceptable for Dr. T to follow most of Mr. and Mrs. T’s wishes. Everyday people all over the world experience infertility and by the wonders of science they have been given the chance to become parents. I do believe it is acceptable to split the remaining embryo into 4 and attempt to implant 2 at a time. If at least one of them takes, then I believe they should draw the line and not use the remaining two. They walk the line of morality if they attempt to have delayed twins. This may be very confusing to the children growing up. I don’t believe the remaining embryos need to be destroyed. There are women out there that do not have to option of using their own eggs, and donor embryos may give them a chance at being a parent. They may also choose to donate them to science to further the research on stem cells. 2. Is embryo splitting morally defensible as an adjunct to IVF and embryo transfer? I do believe that it is ok to offer embryo splitting so long as it does not cause undue damage. The cost of infertility can be huge monetarily and emotionally. If the chance to increase the odds of success with little harm to the mother and the embryo, then I feel like its ok. 3. Is embryo splitting and delayed twinning less morally problematic than cloning via somatic stem cell nuclear transfer? I do believe that it is. If we decided to clone all of the babies to women with fertility issues, then we decrease the genetic diversity that is the basis for life, for individuality, for autonomy and intrinsic values (Brand-Ballard, 2011). Clones are designed whereas embryo splitting and delayed twinning is the produce of conception. The latter will not be a direct clone of an already existing human being. Cloning my lead to the unethical and immoral act of cloning to harvest organs should something go wrong with the “original”.
References: Brand-Ballard, J., Degrazia, D., Mappes, T., (2011). Biomedical Ethics 7th ed. New York, NY. McGraw-Hill.
I feel like Dr. T. should follow through with the couple’s wishes. The science and technology is available so why not utilize it in this situation. Personally, I would not want science having that big of a role in conception of my children but then again I am not in this particular couple’s situation and may feel differently if unable to conceive. I hear heartbreaking stories all the time of couple’s being unable to conceive and again, if the technology is available why not utilize it if proves to be beneficial for their lives.
I believe embryo splitting is an acceptable adjunct to IVF and embryo transfer. While I feel like I do not fully comprehend the whole process, if the end result provides greater odds of a couple successfully conceiving a child, then so be it. As long as these procedures are being performed for the soul purpose of helping an infertile couple to become pregnant, I feel that they are completely morally acceptable.
I am not crazy about the idea of human cloning. I feel like too many other issues would arise from that technology especially if put into the wrong hands. So to answer the question, yes I feel that embryo splitting and delayed twining is less morally problematic. I personally would feel indifferent to have twins of different ages; I just think that is interfering with the natural course of life, not to mention the effects it may have on the children. If I was in this situation, one healthy baby would be enough for me to count my blessings and leave well enough alone.
Brand-Ballard, J., Degrazia, D., Mappes, T., (2011). Biomedical Ethics 7th ed. New York, NY. McGraw-Hill.
I agree I don't see any positive to cloning a human. I believe God made us individuals and cloning would for sure take that away and its also why I oppose delayed twinning.
Our drive to become god like and create life worries me immensely. There is a way we are formed and produced in the natural world. Are we upsetting the balance playing god and changing the conditions on how things are created. I think time will tell and that clock is ticking faster.
Delayed Twinning 1. Should Dr. T act in accordance with the wishes of the couple? Yes, and no. I think that it is perfectly acceptable for Dr. T to follow most of Mr. and Mrs. T’s wishes. Everyday people all over the world experience infertility and by the wonders of science they have been given the chance to become parents. I do believe it is acceptable to split the remaining embryo into 4 and attempt to implant 2 at a time. If at least one of them takes, then I believe they should draw the line and not use the remaining two. They walk the line of morality if they attempt to have delayed twins. This may be very confusing to the children growing up. I don’t believe the remaining embryos need to be destroyed. There are women out there that do not have to option of using their own eggs, and donor embryos may give them a chance at being a parent. They may also choose to donate them to science to further the research on stem cells. 2. Is embryo splitting morally defensible as an adjunct to IVF and embryo transfer? I do believe that it is ok to offer embryo splitting so long as it does not cause undue damage. The cost of infertility can be huge monetarily and emotionally. If the chance to increase the odds of success with little harm to the mother and the embryo, then I feel like its ok. 3. Is embryo splitting and delayed twinning less morally problematic than cloning via somatic stem cell nuclear transfer? I do believe that it is. If we decided to clone all of the babies to women with fertility issues, then we decrease the genetic diversity that is the basis for life, for individuality, for autonomy and intrinsic values (Brand-Ballard, 2011). Clones are designed whereas embryo splitting and delayed twinning is the produce of conception. The latter will not be a direct clone of an already existing human being. Cloning my lead to the unethical and immoral act of cloning to harvest organs should something go wrong with the “original”.
References: Brand-Ballard, J., Degrazia, D., Mappes, T., (2011). Biomedical Ethics 7th ed. New York, NY. McGraw-Hill.
The tricky thing with this issue is were do we draw the line. Were do we say it is okay to go this far and help this couple, but we are not going further to help you. Science is creating ethical decisions that we must as a society put limits.
1. I think that Dr. T shouldn't act in accordance with the couples wishes. My reasoning goes back to one of our ethical theories utilitarianism this states it has to be useful to the majority and I believe if you did this for the majority it wouldn't be good for the masses because you have 2 people maybe 3-4 years apart that are completely identical. We haven't proven if it is safe to split these cells. Babies could potential of have a lot of different birth defects that we are unaware of at this point. I believe when we give humans to potentially play God that is a general gauge of how we have went too far. So according to the theory of utilitarianism it isn't morally right unless it is useful to the masses.
2. I don't believe you can morally defend the splitting of embryo's IVF is already a process that is not natural but I'm not opposed to but if you keep moving the goal post of what is ethically acceptable who knows where it may end. I believe if you keep changing the standards practices can become more and more dangerous.
3. I do believe that embryo splitting and delayed twinning is less of an issue than cloning. Cloning is almost science fiction at this point and to try to preform this on a living being in my opinion would be irresponsible. Even though I disagree with delayed twinning and splitting embryo's I believe you can make more of a case for its purpose and relevance.
References: Brand-Ballard, J., Degrazia, D., Mappes, T., (2011). Biomedical Ethics 7th ed. New York, NY. McGraw-Hill
I agree with you completely, Alex. What happened to only God being able to give life? When you start manipulating to create life is when you run into so many potential problems. According to Murray, "the first truth is that cloning does not result in healthy, normal offspring..... scientists do not know why.... as cells of an embryo divide and begin to transform into the many varieties of tissue that make up our bodies, most of the genes in each cell shut down, leaving active only those that the cell needs to perform its specific role... " (Brand-Ballard et al, pp. 581-582). He continues to explain that those cells are locked in that one specific specialty, such as an islet cell, "like an illegally parked car immobilized by a tire boot" (Brand-Ballard et al, p. 582. Every cell must be unlocked to make a healthy clone. "Unless and until scientists puzzle out how to restore all genes to their original state, we will continue to see dead, dying and deformed clones: (Brand-Ballard, p.582). I would imagine that this same process occurs when you split embryos, especially if you split them into quarters. You are taking what could have been a healthy IVF baby and creating fragments that you do not know how their genes will grow. In that alone they are violating beneficence and non-maleficence.
Cloning is very serious, this is not to make light of it, but with this conversation all I can think of is that late-90s movie Multiplicity, where Doug has the scientist clone himself. Each clone had a slightly flawed trait, #2 was a macho player, #3 was the feminine housewife version, and #4 was Steve who was rather delayed and shaved his tongue.... Cloning, splitting embryos isn't good and can lead to bad things. Even the movie makers knew enough to make a point of it, although they kept it very tongue-in-cheek.
1. Should Dr. T act in accordance with the wishes of the couple? (I assume the book actually means Dr. M, as Dr. M is the physician that Karen and Roger T. consulted with at the University Reproductive Center). 2. Is embryo splitting morally defensible as an adjunct to IVF and embryo transfer?
To properly evaluate whether it is ethical for Dr. M to act in accordance with the wishes of the couple, we have to apply an ethical theory. According to Immanuel Kant, the adherence to duty is the heart of morality. The reasons to follow one’s duty is that it will have benefit or avoid harm of some type, and because you want to follow the moral law and act from good will. The categorical imperative clearly states that individual desires are not factored in, and, more importantly, you must treat humanity as ends, never as a means only. It prohibits using humans as mere instruments to attain one’s own selfish goals. Splitting this remaining embryo into quarters, where two will be left later, possibly creating a delayed twin years from when the first twin/ twins are born is not treating those fragments of an embryo that are meant to become people as an ends, they are being treated as a means only by these parents. Treating an embryo like a pie, where you will simply slice and take what you want now, and leave the rest for later violates morality and ethics based on Kant’s Deontology, and if Dr. M does as the parents’ request, he is not acting ethically.
It is not morally defensible as an adjunct to IVF and embryo transfer for the same reasons that it is not ethical for Dr. M to act in accordance with Karen and Roger’s wishes. Split twinning could lead to numerous ethical debacles. What if this embryo is left for decades, then decades later, they want to use it. This child could have a twin who is old enough to be his/ her parent. One must also ask, does this devalue life? Parents then think they have a “backup” and it leads to dilemmas like the example in Murray’s Even if it worked, cloning wouldn’t bring her back where the father wants to clone his 11 month old he just lost after heart surgery. Another debate is what if one of the first batch of the split embryo is born, this child later develops an illness in which he/ she will die without organ donation. The remaining two quarters of the embryo are left. The parents would certainly want these embryos developed to provide a life-saving organ donation for their child. Would it then be okay to use this embryo for “parts” like a car from a salvage yard? Is it okay to then downgrade the remaining life from that split embryo to simply being “parts” for the more valued other part of that split embryo which was given life and allowed to become a functioning human being?
3. Is embryo splitting and delayed twinning less morally problematic than cloning via somatic stem cell nuclear transfer?
No matter the method, cloning is cloning. They are equally morally problematic. Human life becomes “recyclable” when cloning, splitting embryos and reproductive techniques like this occur. If you lose one child, it’s okay because you can make that child again, or thaw their split twin/ quadruplets and implant them. When the natural process of reproduction, that gift meant to be granted only by God, is replaced with scientists playing God, who grant your reproductive wish, then the gift of life becomes less of a miracle and more of a business.
Brand-Ballard, J., Degrazia, D., Mappes, T., (2011). Biomedical Ethics 7th ed. New York, NY. McGraw-Hill.
Do you think that medications such as clomid or glucophage which help with ovulation should not be given? Those medications are technically science that is granting a reproductive wish. I will assure you that my son is most definitely a miracle to me and the greatest gift I ever received. Without science I would have not conceived.
That's a great question, Jocelyn! I think medications that assist a person in making their own natural eggs and ovulating are fine, although there is the risk for multiples and complications due to possible hyperovulation with them. In cases like that no one is treating an already created life (the embryo) like it's just a thing and can be treated however by freezing it, dividing it, and maybe just leaving it in storage forever.
1. Should Dr. M. act in accordance with the wishes of the couple? I think Dr. M. has a huge moral issue with the parent's request. According to Kant, he must do what is right and cause no harm. He must not use people as a mean. If Dr. M. agrees with the parent's request, he will be putting their goals above that of the what is morally correct in regards to the embryo. I think splitting the cells and freezing half for who knows how long is wrong. What if the implanting of the first half is successful and they are happy with the results of a child and never consider the frozen embryo that is left for the remainder of time? I think it is morally objectionable per Kant and the Principles of Bioethics. If Dr. M. does this procedure, he would also be going against being a virtuous physician.
2. Is embryo splitting morally defensible as an adjunct to IVF embryo transfer? It is not morally defensible as an adjunct to IVF embryo transfer. There are so many good reasons for cloning, however, there are so many moral issues against it. I am a proponent of nature. Letting nature take its course. If IVF works and is in the financial reach of the parents, good for them. This being said, going further with splitting embryos and freezing them is another whole issue. Is it okay to freeze the split embryo for eternity? I think not. I think this is going too far. I think it is taking God out of the equation. 3. Is embryo splitting and delayed twinning less morally problematic than cloning via somatic cell nuclear transfer? Delayed twinning and cloning are wrong. Cloning is cloning. Delayed twining can create huge complications within a family and society. How difficult would it be for a child to see it's twin 20 years older? I would think there would be some mental health issues associated with that. And as I discussed above, what about the embryos that are frozen forever in the name of not "killing" them. We need to think about why nature has been nature since the beginning of time. I think it's great we can help people with infertility issues, but we can't cross the line to make their dreams come true of a blonde haired, blue-eyed male child. Nature needs to come into play and take the business of cloning out of the equation.
Brand-Ballard, J., Degrazia, D., Mappes, T., (2011). Biomedical Ethics 7th ed. New York, NY. McGraw-Hill.
I agree with you completely, Tracy. he entire time I read anything about cloning or genetic engineering I was lead to Kant's Categorical Imperative and Virtue Ethics. I had the same thoughts about this split embryo being frozen for an indefinite amount of time if the implantation of the other "half" did indeed yield a viable pregnancy and produce a baby. I could not help but think about this child's other half being in a suspended state without being given the same opportunity. I also wondered what were the chances, and the ramifications, if some day the human produced from that split embryo "inherited" the frozen other half, and felt morally obligated to bring it to life. Could that person give birth to her "twin" from the embryonic split, or her "other half"? Is it almost like then giving birth to yourself, being your own or your siblings parent.... It's just so messed up I could think of numerous morally sickening scenarios.
Wow, Tracy and Shelley, you both make good points. Points I actually have not thought about. Shelley's scenario about giving birth to yourself, reminds me of the science fiction stories some of us were exposed to in the last semester. To think of this as being remotely possible, most definitely is morally wrong, especially placed under the Virtue Ethics of Kant's Theory.
I do not see the difference between the two therapies. Both is taking the ability to have children to the science of what we can now achieve. The real question ethical would be the idea of IVF at all. Is it okay to manipulate embryos for those unable to fertilize and have their babies in the conventional way? I believe we can and should. The cost would affect all of us. 8000 dollars is a lot of money that most middle class couples do not have lying around. This already denies the lower class the ability to even try the therapies. The MD job is to help the patient have a baby any way they can as long as the baby is not put at risk. If embryo splitting can work they should be able to try it. I don't know if i would want identical twins of different ages. I do not know how that would affect the children.
Brand-Ballard, J., Degrazia, D., Mappes, T., (2011). Biomedical Ethics 7th ed. New York, NY. McGraw-Hill.
I agree that the MD's job is to help the parents have a child. From personal experience I know all too well what is involved with infertility. Some women have poly cystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS). There are varying degrees of severity. Some women need just a little kick start from a medication to help mother nature move along. Some woman require IVF to achieve a pregnancy. The cost can be daunting, but it is not something that is a cost or burden to the public, it is a private matter. Do I think IVF is acceptable, yes I do. Do I think the embryo should be split just to save money....no, not for that reason. Possibly if that is the only egg remaining and that is the only chance a couple has left of conceiving their own child, then ok.
I personally know a couple who has finally achieved their goal of having a child. It was hard to understand while they were going through the daunting process of attempting to conceive, only to always find that they were unsuccessful. When they went through the process of IVF, it also was a long, drawn out trial of whether the conception 'took' or not. At long last, her last egg was used and knowing this was their last hope, became a miracle to them when the embryo was viable and the conception and pregnancy was a complete success. The couple's baby boy is now one year old, and all the family and friends could not feel happier for them! That being said, I feel pressed to say I am for IVF. But, to further this process of embryo splitting is extending beyond into another ethical ground to consider. Technology can be taken too far.
I agree with you, Gloria. In cases like that, IVF is being used morally and ethically. They are not violating the categorical imperative, they are not treating the embryo as a means. They are not violating the principles of beneficence, non-maleficence, autonomy and justice. Apparently your friends valued their embryo, they saw it as a living creature (although it was not growing in her womb yet) they had created and they treated it with respect. I struggle with how these frozen embryos are treated like getting something out and warming it up for dinner... "Maybe we will have the baby", "I think we should only have a quarter and save the rest for later", "well, what if a quarter isn't enough, maybe we should warm up half", "well, it's good that half the baby worked, but that's really all the baby I want, so I think we will just leave the other half in the freezer".....
I think that Dr. M should follow with the wishes of the couple. Wether it is IVF or the embryo transfer it is still a manipulation of the natural process. However, a couple who cannot get pregnant the natural way should be able to achieve this through scientific procedures if they want. I do believe it is weird to think that they can have children genetically identical years apart, but unethical, no. We do procedures all the time that are not natural, but if the science is there and we are benefiting others, why not. Some see it an ethical delema regarding the other embryos is not used and destroyed in some of these cases. A statement in the reading that spoke to me regarding this was "We never exhisted as embryos, in which case killing a embryo does not kill someone like you or me, but merely prevents one of us from existing" (McMahan, 2011). This doctor is merely maximizing pleasure and happiness as he helps them to achieve something they otherwise cannot.
ReplyDeleteBrand-Ballard, J., Degrazia, D., & Mappes,T. (2011). Biomedical Ethics. Seventh edition. The McGraw-Hill Conpanies, Inc. p 508
I agree Ashley, it does manipulate the natural process but like you said, if an infertile couple is longing to have a child, why not utilize this science. I personally cannot imagine having twin children of different ages, I would be afraid of the effects it may have on the children later on.
DeleteI feel like sometimes when couples aren't able to get pregnant it is an opportunity for them to adopt. They end up spending more money often times on procedures that fail more times than they are successful. I know adoption isn't for everyone though.
DeleteI agree Alex. Adoption should always be considered in cases like this. There are expenses related to both, but there are many, many foster children looking for good homes who could possibly be available for adoption.
DeleteI agree adoption should be considered. I know that it is a difficult process for some couples though and then having a child that maybe they don't get young enough to raise it the way they want and they have to start over and instill their values and morals in them and try and raise them it is a difficult challenge if you don't get a child at a pretty young age.
DeleteI also think that it does interrupt the natural process however if this is something that they want and we have accessibility to the science and knowledge why are we not using it.
I do not have kids so it is hard for me, but I agree with Erin, I would be worried about the effects it would have on my children later in life
Case 38
ReplyDeleteI believe Dr. M. should help the couple out according to their wishes, as long as he doesn't hold any personal moral objective. The couple, in conjunction with their specialist, Dr. M. has been trying several years to start a family. This last attempt at IVF has failed and the couple being in their late 30's, feel this may be their absolute last hope. What they ask is the one remaining embryo be utilized to offer them a better chance. Embryo splitting may be considered a form of cloning, but it is considered less problematic than a SCNT type of cloning when used as part of the process of IVF and embryonic transfer for a couple to conceive a long awaited child. When further discussion of this same couple wishing to use the same embryo for future children, you begin to hit a moral fence. Although it isn't along the same lines as SCNT which denies the combination of two parents, it still raises the moral dilemma of delayed twinning. My opinion is that if they are successful at this last effort to conceive, they should accept this child as a blessing and leave the idea alone as to trying again in the future for a duplicate child. This raises a moral dilemma that changes the original quest.
Brand-Ballard, J., Degrazia, D., & Mappes,T. (2011). Biomedical Ethics. Seventh edition. The McGraw-Hill Conpanies, Inc. p 530.
This most likely would be the couple's last hope of conceiving a child of their own. I agree that if they do successfully conceive a healthy baby with this attempt that they should leave well enough alone. I think there could potentially be negative effects on the children later on in life if they proceed with "delayed twinning".
DeleteAgree, and as well they should probably leave well enough alone.
DeleteDelayed Twinning
ReplyDelete1. Should Dr. T act in accordance with the wishes of the couple? Yes, and no. I think that it is perfectly acceptable for Dr. T to follow most of Mr. and Mrs. T’s wishes. Everyday people all over the world experience infertility and by the wonders of science they have been given the chance to become parents. I do believe it is acceptable to split the remaining embryo into 4 and attempt to implant 2 at a time. If at least one of them takes, then I believe they should draw the line and not use the remaining two. They walk the line of morality if they attempt to have delayed twins. This may be very confusing to the children growing up. I don’t believe the remaining embryos need to be destroyed. There are women out there that do not have to option of using their own eggs, and donor embryos may give them a chance at being a parent. They may also choose to donate them to science to further the research on stem cells.
2. Is embryo splitting morally defensible as an adjunct to IVF and embryo transfer? I do believe that it is ok to offer embryo splitting so long as it does not cause undue damage. The cost of infertility can be huge monetarily and emotionally. If the chance to increase the odds of success with little harm to the mother and the embryo, then I feel like its ok.
3. Is embryo splitting and delayed twinning less morally problematic than cloning via somatic stem cell nuclear transfer? I do believe that it is. If we decided to clone all of the babies to women with fertility issues, then we decrease the genetic diversity that is the basis for life, for individuality, for autonomy and intrinsic values (Brand-Ballard, 2011). Clones are designed whereas embryo splitting and delayed twinning is the produce of conception. The latter will not be a direct clone of an already existing human being. Cloning my lead to the unethical and immoral act of cloning to harvest organs should something go wrong with the “original”.
References:
Brand-Ballard, J., Degrazia, D., Mappes, T., (2011). Biomedical Ethics 7th ed. New York, NY. McGraw-Hill.
I feel like Dr. T. should follow through with the couple’s wishes. The science and technology is available so why not utilize it in this situation. Personally, I would not want science having that big of a role in conception of my children but then again I am not in this particular couple’s situation and may feel differently if unable to conceive. I hear heartbreaking stories all the time of couple’s being unable to conceive and again, if the technology is available why not utilize it if proves to be beneficial for their lives.
ReplyDeleteI believe embryo splitting is an acceptable adjunct to IVF and embryo transfer. While I feel like I do not fully comprehend the whole process, if the end result provides greater odds of a couple successfully conceiving a child, then so be it. As long as these procedures are being performed for the soul purpose of helping an infertile couple to become pregnant, I feel that they are completely morally acceptable.
I am not crazy about the idea of human cloning. I feel like too many other issues would arise from that technology especially if put into the wrong hands. So to answer the question, yes I feel that embryo splitting and delayed twining is less morally problematic. I personally would feel indifferent to have twins of different ages; I just think that is interfering with the natural course of life, not to mention the effects it may have on the children. If I was in this situation, one healthy baby would be enough for me to count my blessings and leave well enough alone.
Brand-Ballard, J., Degrazia, D., Mappes, T., (2011). Biomedical Ethics 7th ed. New York, NY. McGraw-Hill.
I agree I don't see any positive to cloning a human. I believe God made us individuals and cloning would for sure take that away and its also why I oppose delayed twinning.
DeleteThe idea of cloning is very fascinating... Great we have the science, but just because we can does not mean we should!
DeleteOur drive to become god like and create life worries me immensely. There is a way we are formed and produced in the natural world. Are we upsetting the balance playing god and changing the conditions on how things are created. I think time will tell and that clock is ticking faster.
DeleteDelayed Twinning
ReplyDelete1. Should Dr. T act in accordance with the wishes of the couple? Yes, and no. I think that it is perfectly acceptable for Dr. T to follow most of Mr. and Mrs. T’s wishes. Everyday people all over the world experience infertility and by the wonders of science they have been given the chance to become parents. I do believe it is acceptable to split the remaining embryo into 4 and attempt to implant 2 at a time. If at least one of them takes, then I believe they should draw the line and not use the remaining two. They walk the line of morality if they attempt to have delayed twins. This may be very confusing to the children growing up. I don’t believe the remaining embryos need to be destroyed. There are women out there that do not have to option of using their own eggs, and donor embryos may give them a chance at being a parent. They may also choose to donate them to science to further the research on stem cells.
2. Is embryo splitting morally defensible as an adjunct to IVF and embryo transfer? I do believe that it is ok to offer embryo splitting so long as it does not cause undue damage. The cost of infertility can be huge monetarily and emotionally. If the chance to increase the odds of success with little harm to the mother and the embryo, then I feel like its ok.
3. Is embryo splitting and delayed twinning less morally problematic than cloning via somatic stem cell nuclear transfer? I do believe that it is. If we decided to clone all of the babies to women with fertility issues, then we decrease the genetic diversity that is the basis for life, for individuality, for autonomy and intrinsic values (Brand-Ballard, 2011). Clones are designed whereas embryo splitting and delayed twinning is the produce of conception. The latter will not be a direct clone of an already existing human being. Cloning my lead to the unethical and immoral act of cloning to harvest organs should something go wrong with the “original”.
References:
Brand-Ballard, J., Degrazia, D., Mappes, T., (2011). Biomedical Ethics 7th ed. New York, NY. McGraw-Hill.
The tricky thing with this issue is were do we draw the line. Were do we say it is okay to go this far and help this couple, but we are not going further to help you. Science is creating ethical decisions that we must as a society put limits.
DeleteCase 38
ReplyDelete1. I think that Dr. T shouldn't act in accordance with the couples wishes. My reasoning goes back to one of our ethical theories utilitarianism this states it has to be useful to the majority and I believe if you did this for the majority it wouldn't be good for the masses because you have 2 people maybe 3-4 years apart that are completely identical. We haven't proven if it is safe to split these cells. Babies could potential of have a lot of different birth defects that we are unaware of at this point. I believe when we give humans to potentially play God that is a general gauge of how we have went too far. So according to the theory of utilitarianism it isn't morally right unless it is useful to the masses.
2. I don't believe you can morally defend the splitting of embryo's IVF is already a process that is not natural but I'm not opposed to but if you keep moving the goal post of what is ethically acceptable who knows where it may end. I believe if you keep changing the standards practices can become more and more dangerous.
3. I do believe that embryo splitting and delayed twinning is less of an issue than cloning. Cloning is almost science fiction at this point and to try to preform this on a living being in my opinion would be irresponsible. Even though I disagree with delayed twinning and splitting embryo's I believe you can make more of a case for its purpose and relevance.
References:
Brand-Ballard, J., Degrazia, D., Mappes, T., (2011). Biomedical Ethics 7th ed. New York, NY. McGraw-Hill
I agree with you completely, Alex. What happened to only God being able to give life? When you start manipulating to create life is when you run into so many potential problems. According to Murray, "the first truth is that cloning does not result in healthy, normal offspring..... scientists do not know why.... as cells of an embryo divide and begin to transform into the many varieties of tissue that make up our bodies, most of the genes in each cell shut down, leaving active only those that the cell needs to perform its specific role... " (Brand-Ballard et al, pp. 581-582). He continues to explain that those cells are locked in that one specific specialty, such as an islet cell, "like an illegally parked car immobilized by a tire boot" (Brand-Ballard et al, p. 582. Every cell must be unlocked to make a healthy clone. "Unless and until scientists puzzle out how to restore all genes to their original state, we will continue to see dead, dying and deformed clones: (Brand-Ballard, p.582). I would imagine that this same process occurs when you split embryos, especially if you split them into quarters. You are taking what could have been a healthy IVF baby and creating fragments that you do not know how their genes will grow. In that alone they are violating beneficence and non-maleficence.
DeleteCloning is very serious, this is not to make light of it, but with this conversation all I can think of is that late-90s movie Multiplicity, where Doug has the scientist clone himself. Each clone had a slightly flawed trait, #2 was a macho player, #3 was the feminine housewife version, and #4 was Steve who was rather delayed and shaved his tongue.... Cloning, splitting embryos isn't good and can lead to bad things. Even the movie makers knew enough to make a point of it, although they kept it very tongue-in-cheek.
Delete1. Should Dr. T act in accordance with the wishes of the couple? (I assume the book actually means Dr. M, as Dr. M is the physician that Karen and Roger T. consulted with at the University Reproductive Center).
ReplyDelete2. Is embryo splitting morally defensible as an adjunct to IVF and embryo transfer?
To properly evaluate whether it is ethical for Dr. M to act in accordance with the wishes of the couple, we have to apply an ethical theory. According to Immanuel Kant, the adherence to duty is the heart of morality. The reasons to follow one’s duty is that it will have benefit or avoid harm of some type, and because you want to follow the moral law and act from good will. The categorical imperative clearly states that individual desires are not factored in, and, more importantly, you must treat humanity as ends, never as a means only. It prohibits using humans as mere instruments to attain one’s own selfish goals. Splitting this remaining embryo into quarters, where two will be left later, possibly creating a delayed twin years from when the first twin/ twins are born is not treating those fragments of an embryo that are meant to become people as an ends, they are being treated as a means only by these parents. Treating an embryo like a pie, where you will simply slice and take what you want now, and leave the rest for later violates morality and ethics based on Kant’s Deontology, and if Dr. M does as the parents’ request, he is not acting ethically.
It is not morally defensible as an adjunct to IVF and embryo transfer for the same reasons that it is not ethical for Dr. M to act in accordance with Karen and Roger’s wishes. Split twinning could lead to numerous ethical debacles. What if this embryo is left for decades, then decades later, they want to use it. This child could have a twin who is old enough to be his/ her parent. One must also ask, does this devalue life? Parents then think they have a “backup” and it leads to dilemmas like the example in Murray’s Even if it worked, cloning wouldn’t bring her back where the father wants to clone his 11 month old he just lost after heart surgery. Another debate is what if one of the first batch of the split embryo is born, this child later develops an illness in which he/ she will die without organ donation. The remaining two quarters of the embryo are left. The parents would certainly want these embryos developed to provide a life-saving organ donation for their child. Would it then be okay to use this embryo for “parts” like a car from a salvage yard? Is it okay to then downgrade the remaining life from that split embryo to simply being “parts” for the more valued other part of that split embryo which was given life and allowed to become a functioning human being?
3. Is embryo splitting and delayed twinning less morally problematic than cloning via somatic stem cell nuclear transfer?
No matter the method, cloning is cloning. They are equally morally problematic. Human life becomes “recyclable” when cloning, splitting embryos and reproductive techniques like this occur. If you lose one child, it’s okay because you can make that child again, or thaw their split twin/ quadruplets and implant them. When the natural process of reproduction, that gift meant to be granted only by God, is replaced with scientists playing God, who grant your reproductive wish, then the gift of life becomes less of a miracle and more of a business.
Brand-Ballard, J., Degrazia, D., Mappes, T., (2011). Biomedical Ethics 7th ed. New York, NY. McGraw-Hill.
Well stated Shelley...I agree with you.
DeleteDo you think that medications such as clomid or glucophage which help with ovulation should not be given? Those medications are technically science that is granting a reproductive wish. I will assure you that my son is most definitely a miracle to me and the greatest gift I ever received. Without science I would have not conceived.
DeleteThat's a great question, Jocelyn! I think medications that assist a person in making their own natural eggs and ovulating are fine, although there is the risk for multiples and complications due to possible hyperovulation with them. In cases like that no one is treating an already created life (the embryo) like it's just a thing and can be treated however by freezing it, dividing it, and maybe just leaving it in storage forever.
Delete1. Should Dr. M. act in accordance with the wishes of the couple?
ReplyDeleteI think Dr. M. has a huge moral issue with the parent's request. According to Kant, he must do what is right and cause no harm. He must not use people as a mean. If Dr. M. agrees with the parent's request, he will be putting their goals above that of the what is morally correct in regards to the embryo. I think splitting the cells and freezing half for who knows how long is wrong. What if the implanting of the first half is successful and they are happy with the results of a child and never consider the frozen embryo that is left for the remainder of time? I think it is morally objectionable per Kant and the Principles of Bioethics. If Dr. M. does this procedure, he would also be going against being a virtuous physician.
2. Is embryo splitting morally defensible as an adjunct to IVF embryo transfer?
It is not morally defensible as an adjunct to IVF embryo transfer. There are so many good reasons for cloning, however, there are so many moral issues against it. I am a proponent of nature. Letting nature take its course. If IVF works and is in the financial reach of the parents, good for them. This being said, going further with splitting embryos and freezing them is another whole issue. Is it okay to freeze the split embryo for eternity? I think not. I think this is going too far. I think it is taking God out of the equation.
3. Is embryo splitting and delayed twinning less morally problematic than cloning via somatic cell nuclear transfer?
Delayed twinning and cloning are wrong. Cloning is cloning. Delayed twining can create huge complications within a family and society. How difficult would it be for a child to see it's twin 20 years older? I would think there would be some mental health issues associated with that. And as I discussed above, what about the embryos that are frozen forever in the name of not "killing" them. We need to think about why nature has been nature since the beginning of time. I think it's great we can help people with infertility issues, but we can't cross the line to make their dreams come true of a blonde haired, blue-eyed male child. Nature needs to come into play and take the business of cloning out of the equation.
Brand-Ballard, J., Degrazia, D., Mappes, T., (2011). Biomedical Ethics 7th ed. New York, NY. McGraw-Hill.
I agree with you completely, Tracy. he entire time I read anything about cloning or genetic engineering I was lead to Kant's Categorical Imperative and Virtue Ethics. I had the same thoughts about this split embryo being frozen for an indefinite amount of time if the implantation of the other "half" did indeed yield a viable pregnancy and produce a baby. I could not help but think about this child's other half being in a suspended state without being given the same opportunity. I also wondered what were the chances, and the ramifications, if some day the human produced from that split embryo "inherited" the frozen other half, and felt morally obligated to bring it to life. Could that person give birth to her "twin" from the embryonic split, or her "other half"? Is it almost like then giving birth to yourself, being your own or your siblings parent.... It's just so messed up I could think of numerous morally sickening scenarios.
DeleteWow, Tracy and Shelley, you both make good points. Points I actually have not thought about. Shelley's scenario about giving birth to yourself, reminds me of the science fiction stories some of us were exposed to in the last semester. To think of this as being remotely possible, most definitely is morally wrong, especially placed under the Virtue Ethics of Kant's Theory.
DeleteI do not see the difference between the two therapies. Both is taking the ability to have children to the science of what we can now achieve. The real question ethical would be the idea of IVF at all. Is it okay to manipulate embryos for those unable to fertilize and have their babies in the conventional way? I believe we can and should. The cost would affect all of us. 8000 dollars is a lot of money that most middle class couples do not have lying around. This already denies the lower class the ability to even try the therapies.
ReplyDeleteThe MD job is to help the patient have a baby any way they can as long as the baby is not put at risk. If embryo splitting can work they should be able to try it. I don't know if i would want identical twins of different ages. I do not know how that would affect the children.
Brand-Ballard, J., Degrazia, D., Mappes, T., (2011). Biomedical Ethics 7th ed. New York, NY. McGraw-Hill.
I agree that the MD's job is to help the parents have a child. From personal experience I know all too well what is involved with infertility. Some women have poly cystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS). There are varying degrees of severity. Some women need just a little kick start from a medication to help mother nature move along. Some woman require IVF to achieve a pregnancy. The cost can be daunting, but it is not something that is a cost or burden to the public, it is a private matter. Do I think IVF is acceptable, yes I do. Do I think the embryo should be split just to save money....no, not for that reason. Possibly if that is the only egg remaining and that is the only chance a couple has left of conceiving their own child, then ok.
ReplyDeleteI personally know a couple who has finally achieved their goal of having a child. It was hard to understand while they were going through the daunting process of attempting to conceive, only to always find that they were unsuccessful. When they went through the process of IVF, it also was a long, drawn out trial of whether the conception 'took' or not. At long last, her last egg was used and knowing this was their last hope, became a miracle to them when the embryo was viable and the conception and pregnancy was a complete success. The couple's baby boy is now one year old, and all the family and friends could not feel happier for them! That being said, I feel pressed to say I am for IVF. But, to further this process of embryo splitting is extending beyond into another ethical ground to consider. Technology can be taken too far.
DeleteI agree with you, Gloria. In cases like that, IVF is being used morally and ethically. They are not violating the categorical imperative, they are not treating the embryo as a means. They are not violating the principles of beneficence, non-maleficence, autonomy and justice. Apparently your friends valued their embryo, they saw it as a living creature (although it was not growing in her womb yet) they had created and they treated it with respect. I struggle with how these frozen embryos are treated like getting something out and warming it up for dinner... "Maybe we will have the baby", "I think we should only have a quarter and save the rest for later", "well, what if a quarter isn't enough, maybe we should warm up half", "well, it's good that half the baby worked, but that's really all the baby I want, so I think we will just leave the other half in the freezer".....
Delete