Ethical Reproductive Technologies
Ethics of reproductive technologies
Introduction
With most technological advances in the field of medicine, ethical considerations and concerns are formed. "Just because we can do something , should we do it?" This is a question that has plagued scientists in the last half of the twentieth century. The field of reproductive medicine in particular has faced this question-- perhaps more than any other field. For the first time in history, as an outgrowth of in vitro fertilization technology and research, the three components of parenthood - the genetic, the gestational, and the nurturant - can be separated, so that the loss of one does not necessarily result in the loss of the others.
For a man or woman who may not be able to conceive a …show more content…
In addition, permitting sex selection, even in male dominated cultures could be positive, as it avoids the harm of compelling women to successive pregnancies until they have sons [9]. Even if a sex ratio imbalance does occur, some argue that this would serve to increase women’s value in the eyes of men [4]. It is also reasoned that parental autonomy and reproductive liberties are more important than equality [4,] [9], 0]. This technology allows medical professionals to aid the desires of couples with strong preferences for a particular sex- so why should they be denied if there is no demonstrable harm to others? [1] [5] There are potential psychological harms for the sex-selected offspring, as they might not live up to their parents’ high expectations [11]
.
Also, “shopping” for a particular sex devalues the dignity of children and their wellbeing [7]. It is proposed that they are effectively being used as a means to gratify their parents [12] and that moral and family dimensions are more important than consumer choice [13]. Children should not be accepted or rejected because of their sex- they should be loved unconditionally [10] [3]. Some believe that parents should not be granted inappropriate control of non-essential characteristics [14], as they could lose sight of the pleasure of children [11]
Designer …show more content…
I believe that parents are acting in the best interests of their child by having a second child to save the first. PGD could also be used to enable parents to choose superficial characteristics such as eye colour, intelligence, beauty and so on [1]. This practice is highly controversial, as it would mean that children could become primarily valued according to the attractiveness of their expected characteristics [1]. It could also prevent the child from developing its own personality and identity, and they would be burdened with living up to the standards they were “designed” to meet [1] [16]
It is feared that selection of certain favourable traits will lead to discrimination and stigmatisation of people without those traits [1]. This could also damage the sense of self-worth and identity of disabled people, if they were viewed as “genetically inferior” [21] [22]. The expensive nature of PGD would mean that only wealthy people could afford it, so a “genetic overclass” would be established that had
Introduction
With most technological advances in the field of medicine, ethical considerations and concerns are formed. "Just because we can do something , should we do it?" This is a question that has plagued scientists in the last half of the twentieth century. The field of reproductive medicine in particular has faced this question-- perhaps more than any other field. For the first time in history, as an outgrowth of in vitro fertilization technology and research, the three components of parenthood - the genetic, the gestational, and the nurturant - can be separated, so that the loss of one does not necessarily result in the loss of the others.
For a man or woman who may not be able to conceive a …show more content…
In addition, permitting sex selection, even in male dominated cultures could be positive, as it avoids the harm of compelling women to successive pregnancies until they have sons [9]. Even if a sex ratio imbalance does occur, some argue that this would serve to increase women’s value in the eyes of men [4]. It is also reasoned that parental autonomy and reproductive liberties are more important than equality [4,] [9], 0]. This technology allows medical professionals to aid the desires of couples with strong preferences for a particular sex- so why should they be denied if there is no demonstrable harm to others? [1] [5] There are potential psychological harms for the sex-selected offspring, as they might not live up to their parents’ high expectations [11]
.
Also, “shopping” for a particular sex devalues the dignity of children and their wellbeing [7]. It is proposed that they are effectively being used as a means to gratify their parents [12] and that moral and family dimensions are more important than consumer choice [13]. Children should not be accepted or rejected because of their sex- they should be loved unconditionally [10] [3]. Some believe that parents should not be granted inappropriate control of non-essential characteristics [14], as they could lose sight of the pleasure of children [11]
Designer …show more content…
I believe that parents are acting in the best interests of their child by having a second child to save the first. PGD could also be used to enable parents to choose superficial characteristics such as eye colour, intelligence, beauty and so on [1]. This practice is highly controversial, as it would mean that children could become primarily valued according to the attractiveness of their expected characteristics [1]. It could also prevent the child from developing its own personality and identity, and they would be burdened with living up to the standards they were “designed” to meet [1] [16]
It is feared that selection of certain favourable traits will lead to discrimination and stigmatisation of people without those traits [1]. This could also damage the sense of self-worth and identity of disabled people, if they were viewed as “genetically inferior” [21] [22]. The expensive nature of PGD would mean that only wealthy people could afford it, so a “genetic overclass” would be established that had