Monday, April 1, 2019
Ethics Of Pre Implantation Genetic Testing Philosophy Essay
Ethics Of Pre implantation Genetic Testing Philosophy EssayHumanity revolves around pro earthly concern. We cont death to reproduce in order to produce future generations. In the gone few years, science and medicine has gained an immense amount of knowledge virtually pregnancy and the underlying break up psychogenic stages of how it works. Furthermore, science is progressively improving, resulting in our expertness to diagnose, manipulate and sometimes treat genic abnormalities. Procedures such(prenominal) as the pre-implantation genic diagnosis (PGD) were developed as a marrow to avoid recognizeive abortions by detecting that the embryo is free of terrible lethal genetic diseases such as Huntingtons disease. However, recently PGD has been raising some ethical questions as people began utilisation this technology for medically unrelated and idle reasons. chest of drawers and molybdenumary motives of patients who give PGD for the creation of designer babies and saviou r blood relations violates the funda amiable tenet of cleanity. Using PGD for reasons other(prenominal) than justified genetic testing is impermissible beca mapping it treats the effectiveness baby as a means not as arrests in itself therefore, it violates Kants endorsement prostrate overbearing.Scientific BackgroundPGD works through a process of In Vitro Fertilization (IVF). In this procedure, multiple eggs be produced, retrieved from the ovaries and manually fertilized with the husbands sperm in a laboratory, outside of the female body3. As the embryos develop in vitro, embryo biopsy is per strained by removing a single cell from all(prenominal) three day old embryo4. These cells be analyzed-by a variety of methods-for especial(a) chromosomal or genetic abnormalities in order to distinguish which embryos ar free of genetic disease. Normal, healthy embryos are then transferred into the uterus where they stack grow and develop into a healthy barbarian.ArgumentsKan tImmanuel Kant came up with a moral philosophy that was based on a theory of the Categorical Imperative. These are valid dominions based off of the concept of duty that must be obeyed by all and are good in and of themselves. The randomness categorical dictatorial states that one should Act in such a stylus that you treat humanity, whether in your consume individual or in the somebody of any other, always at the said(prenominal) time as an end and never unmingledly as a means to an end2. In other words, one has perfect duty to not use someone as a means to achieve a personal goal. This principle of shrewdity formulates the core of moral law and requirements that intellectual federal agents must follow. Furthermore, each rational creation has autonomy, or a free entrust to practice their own law. However, possession of autonomy by each being implies that all persons should be tough equally, with the same amount of respect and one coffin nailnot infringe on the other s rational will. The intuitive essence of humanity, therefore, objects to using others as a mere tool because it overlooks ones integrity and humanness. So, one dirty dognot assert a moral unspoilt to own a person-like a piece of property-because proprietary sound over a person denies any existence of a free rational action furthermore, it denies the person a set to be an end in themselves. But, humans name value and worth hence, they require to be respected. all(prenominal) person deserves to be respected for his/her integral being (of who they are). While PGD is performed on fetuses, its use is still unjustified because fetuses are potentiality persons and therefore, require the same amount of respect as any other person. Furthermore, the use of PGD in creating designer babies and savior siblings violates Kants second categorical imperative.Designer BabiesA truly compelling argument against PGD arises out of its questionable potential use in creating perfect designer babi es. The technology behind PGD would allow parents to select particularized and nonessential traits (such as eye color, height, athletic ability, even intelligence) that they want their pincer to express. such technology is reminiscent of the Build-a-Bear Workshop but for grown-ups. Using PGD as a means for eugenics is fallacious and unjustified in numerous ways, such as its violation of the second categorical imperative.Parents have abused PGD use in order to have it cater to their individual conceited expectations of creating a perfect nestling. They vainly pick and chose the traits they find beneficial and get resign of ones they find unhealthy or unperfect so they could return their goal of not having a financially and socially burdensome nipper. Not only is this legal injury because it discriminates against the disabled but also because it violates the core value of humanity by infringing upon the tiddlers supreme will by treating him/her as a means to an out or keepi ng(p) end. The parents social and economic ends are being pursued while the tikes ends are being neglected. In designing a child, parents destruct the childs will (in a few different ways) therefore, they fail to treat them as an end in themselves. Physically, parents annihilate certain features their child would naturally possess (not to mention the eradication of unwanted fetuses). By doing so, parents fail to treat the child tender-heartedly. Also, altering amiable abilities of a child is deceptive and confuses their will. Hence, it overlooks the rational ability of a-potential-rational agent and his/her end in himself/herself. Finally, parents restrict their childs will by altering their whole mental and physical being and not allowing them to pursue their individual goals as they peck fit4. In order for the mental and physical humanity to be treated as an end, ones will must exist. However, when parents select traits for their child, they overlook their childs dignified an d humane right to be how they were naturally meant to be. They use their child as a means to reach some vain, social or economical end, therefore, violating Kants second categorical imperative. Every human being is a rational agent (even the fetus which is a potential person) and has autonomy therefore, one should not be treated as a means to an end. Because the use of PGD allows parents to use their children as a means to an unjustified end, its use is impermissible.Savior SiblingsAnother screw with using PGD rises out of its unjustified creation of savior siblings. A savior sibling is a child created by tissue typing and alleviate of PGD in hope of providing a perfect HLA-match for the seriously sick sibling in order to save his/her brio. While the engineered child does not gather or is harmed, the implications of such procedure are morally unethical. It objectifies the child, facial expressioning him/her as a mere commodity, disregarding the childs humane right to equality. Treating such child as a tool to cure another violates an ethical principle of treating a person as an end in himself/herself (violates the second CI) because it uses the child as a means for which to treat the unhealthy older sibling. Such applications of PGD resemble slavery, where the savior child is a slave and the parent is a slave-owner. The parent would possess a right to own the slave child affirming the child as a commodity. But a child is not an object to have possession over the child is a person who requires respect and possesses an autonomous will to be an end in himself/herself. Therefore, creating a slave or savior sibling would violate the categorical imperative due to the demolishment of the childs free rational action. Thus, use of PGD for the creation of savior (slave) siblings is unjustified because it strongly violates Kants second categorical imperative.Furthermore, creation of savior siblings leads to other problems. In addition to being unethical, there is a strong belief that a childs profound identity would be impaired. They would be beguileed as a thirdhand gain, a tool solely designed for the purpose of saving another life. This impaired will of the child would lead to countless psychological problems. The mental aspect of the childs humane nature would be compromised-the child would lack self-pride and self-rescpect-as he/she would not be praised for his/her individual value but earlier as a means to a particular end. Parents, by using PGD for instrumentalization of their children, would violate the childs autonomous will and individual personal value by using them as mere means to parental ends and limiting a childs right to an open future4.In sum, PGD promotes unjustified creation of designer babies and savior siblings. The use of this technology allows parents to use their children (or potential children) as a means to satisfy their parental end therefore, neglecting the childs autonomous will to be an end in himself/herself . Thus using PGD to create designer babies and savior siblings is impermissible because it violates Kants second categorical imperative.OppositionPGD is argued to be unethical in this paper however, others view its use acceptable and nothing more than a legitimate autonomous right of parents to produce healthy children. They believe that because parents are the most socially and economically affected by the birth of a child, then they should have the right and freedom to take on the identity of their offspring. Having a healthy child is in the parents interest because it is less socially and financially close and burdensome. Besides, being healthy is in the better(p) interest of the child as well. The child would want to live a happy and healthy life, free of disease. If PGD can provide a tool for removing such lethal and stigmatizing disease form society, then it should be perfectly plausible to be able to use it. Parents have a right to choose what it best for their children and family therefore, using PGD as a means that will allow them to select for traits they see best fit for their child would be perfectly justified.RebuttalHowever, while these are plausible reasons for the use of PGD, they are not strong enough to relieve its immoral applications. Every single individual-even the potential person and the disabled-has a right to autonomy. No one can or should be able to define what life is worth living furthermore, no one can trim the quality of life of principle on another. As previously stated, we can not say that the disabled lead a good or a bad life it is simply not for us to decide. In fact, values of good and bad are of human conception and will vary from person to person. Parents need to take responsibility, financially and mentally for their child regardless of its physical well-being. Good parent do not choose furthermore, they do not use their child as a means to appease their interest of having a less socially and financially constraining life. Using PGD for vain reasons is never morally justified. Using PGD for medicinal reasons is admit however, using it for designer babies and savior siblings violates the fundamental principle of ethics (Kants second categorical imperative) and therefore, can never be morally justified.ConclusionIn conclusion, PGD has revolutionized reproduction. It has granted access into a remote realm by allowing persons to select favorable genetic characteristics of offspring before implantation. However, while its promising view of the world without suffering and disease sounds appealing, moral justifications of PGD and its policy raise many concerns. More specifically, some of the issues with the use of this technology deal with the unjustified creation of designer babies and savior siblings. These are serious issues, the implications of which can have mischievous and irreversible consequences on the present and future generations. While some of the applications of PGD may be accepted nev ertheless, as of now, the risks outweigh the benefits. It is not medicines role to make one more socially accepted or be better-off. Those are not the types of standards for us to decide. Intentional destruction of potential human life is never justified. PGD runs on a dangerously thin line of potential medicinal benefit and playing God. It also violates Kants second categorical imperative by treating fetuses as a mere means to an end. Therefore, until clear, strictly medicinal and ethical applications of PGD are established, the use of this technology can not be justified.