Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Ethical issues in genetic engineering
The ethical dilemma of designer babies summary
The ethical dilemma of designer babies summary
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Ethical issues in genetic engineering
As modern technology continues to thrust forward, people are increasingly wondering which doors to open and which to leave closed. One of these technologies is a process called preimplantation genetic diagnosis or PGD. This technique is used to indentify genetic defects in embryos created through in vitro fertilization (IVF) before pregnancy. One would assume that this is a seemingly positive step towards alleviating inherited illnesses. Others say that this type of genetic revolution is like opening Pandora’s Box. People have been known to go to great lengths to conceive a child. When push comes to shove, people will take advantage of whatever technology is available to produce offspring. However, who should regulate such technology? There has always been a fine line between church and state. PGD needs to be regulated and monitored because of the highly ethical conundrums it produces.
Let’s look at in vitro fertilization, also known as the “in glass” baby technique. In a small hospital located in Oldham, Lancashire on July 25, 1978, baby Louise Joy Brown was born. She was born after her parents, Leslie and John Brown had spent nine years trying to conceive without any success. They had been referred to Dr. Patrick Steptoe and Dr. Robert Edwards in 1976. On November 10, 1977, Leslie Brown, underwent the very experimental procedure of IVF. Dr. Steptoe took and egg from Mrs. Brown using a laparoscope and Dr. Edwards then mixed Leslie’s egg with husband Jon’s sperm. Once fertilized, the egg is placed in a special solution while the cells divide, and then placed back into Leslie’s womb. It is safe to say that people will go to great lengths such as being a part of an experimental procedure which includes hormonal injections and a ...
... middle of paper ...
...ing Technological, Scientific, and Cultural Trends That Are Changing--and Will Change--human Beings in Fundamental Ways. 11 June 2009. Web. 21 June 2010. .
Faison, Amanda M. "The Miracle of Molly." 5280 Denver's Magazine. Aug. 2005. Web.
Gosden, R. G. Designing Babies: the Brave New World of Reproductive Technology. New York: W.H. Freeman, 1999. Print.
Lemonick, Michael, Alice Park, and David Bjerklie. "Designer Babies - TIME." Breaking News, Analysis, Politics, Blogs, News Photos, Video, Tech Reviews - TIME.com. 11 Jan. 1999. Web. 21 June 2010.
My Sister's Keeper. Dir. Nick Cassavetes. Perf. Cameron Diaz and Abigail Breslin. New Line Cinema, 2009. Film.
Silver, Lee M. Challenging Nature: the Clash of Science and Spirituality at the New Frontiers of Life. New York: Ecco, 2006. Print.
Catalano, Michael. "The Prospect of Designer Babies: Is It Inevitable?" The People, Ideas, and Things (PIT) Journal. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 May 2014.
Of?"http://www.siumed.edu/medhum/electives/HealthPolicyMedia/wk5Stock.pdf 22.11 (2003). Rpt. in Designer Babies. Ed. Clayton Farris Naff. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2013. At Issue. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 2 May 2014.
The addition of a child into a family’s home is a happy occasion. Unfortunately, some families are unable to have a child due to unforeseen problems, and they must pursue other means than natural pregnancy. Some couples adopt and other couples follow a different path; they utilize in vitro fertilization or surrogate motherhood. The process is complicated, unreliable, but ultimately can give the parents the gift of a child they otherwise could not have had. At the same time, as the process becomes more and more advanced and scientists are able to predict the outcome of the technique, the choice of what child is born is placed in the hands of the parents. Instead of waiting to see if the child had the mother’s eyes, the father’s hair or Grandma’s heart problem, the parents and doctors can select the best eggs and the best sperm to create the perfect child. Many see the rise of in vitro fertilization as the second coming of the Eugenics movement of the 19th and early 20th century. A process that is able to bring joy to so many parents is also seen as deciding who is able to reproduce and what child is worthy of birthing.
With the increased rate of integrating In Vitro Fertilization (IVF), there has been a steep inclination within the associated needs of specifications. Observably, the development of babies using scientific measures was initially formulated and specified for developing the diverse range of development associated with the same (Turriziani, 2014). However, these developments are noted to be creating an adverse impact on the natural course of events and subsequently, resulting with an adverse impact on the natural process of the development of babies. The initial integrations within the system of IVF for developing babies have further been initiated with the effective use of science to develop a healthy baby. Hence, the use of such progressions can be argued as not hampering the ethical needs associated with the same. Conversely, the initial progression within the same and the changes in the use of such practices are identified as unethical, as it has been acting as a threat in the natural course of development of embryos and altering the natural course of events, suspected to be imposing significant influence on infant mortality (Turriziani,
Marsh, Beezy. "'Designer' Baby to save Brother." Mail Online. Associated Newspapers, n.d. Web. 29 Apr. 2014.
In vitro fertilization is a procedure to treat the genetic failure in the ovaries that allow a women to naturally conceive a child. Today’s advancements in technology has changed the in vitro fertilization market in many different ways. Personally being a product and witness of the “test tube” baby generation, I understand the happiness and completeness a family experiences when these procedures are successful. On the other hand, although people know a lot about this procedure, most don’t understand the negative effects it can have on families due to extreme technological advancements if government doesn’t enforce strict regulations on this market. I believe this market needs extreme government intervention in order to prevent the harmful future
In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) is a complex series of procedures used to help those who want children but struggle with infertility. The process consists of extracting eggs from a woman and collecting a man’s sperm sample then manually combining them in a lab dish. Once the embryo(s) are created they are transferred to a woman’s uterus. IVF is commonly used in woman who cannot conceive on their own due to different reasonings. “These include but are not limited to blocked or damaged fallopian tubes, male factor infertility, woman with ovulation disorders, genetic disorders, woman who have had their fallopian tubes removed and unexplained infertility.” (American Pregnancy)
...ngerous game to play and included unpredictable risks but this is promising and worthy to try. However, designer babies bring a new hope to many families, a solution to pollution and future. People will debate about PGD’s ethical and liberty for long, but the value of technique has estimated and proved. Therefore, scientists do not have a power of God, but they have brave and power of knowledge. If they can ensure designer babies’ benefits, what stop us to say yes?
The omnipotent promise of ART, coupled with parents’ deep desires to have their “own child”, overwhelms and overshadows the capacity to think, sometimes with tragic consequences. We see parents who relied on reproductive technologies to conceive now expect other technologies will rescue and maintain their babies. It is heartbreaking to hear NICU parents wonder if their pregnancy would have been healthier and the baby more likely to thrive if they had transferred only one embryo. Or listen to them worry that it was the selective reduction from quads to twins that brought on the premature labor and then birth at only 25 weeks.
In today’s world, people are learning a great deal in the rapidly growing and developing fields of science and technology. Almost each day, an individual can see or hear about new discoveries and advances in these fields of study. One science that is rapidly progressing is genetic testing; a valuable science that promotes prevention efforts for genetically susceptible people and provides new strategies for disease management. Unnaturally, and morally wrong, genetic testing is a controversial science that manipulates human ethics. Although genetic testing has enormous advantages, the uncertainties of genetic testing will depreciate our quality of life, and thereby result in psychological burden, discrimination, and abortion.
Test tube babies have long been stigmatized by society as the unnatural results of scientific dabbling. The words `test tube baby' have been used by school children as an insult, and many adults have seen an artificial means of giving birth as something perhaps only necessary for a lesbian woman, or a luxury item only available to the elite few. The reality is that assisted reproductive technologies (ART) have been helping infertile couples have children since 1978.1 The methods of in vitro fertilization, it's variants, and the other ART procedures are ways for persons that would otherwise have no hope of conception to conceive and, in a rapidly growing percentage of cases, give birth to healthy babies. As the technology has developed, the quality and range of assistance has developed as well. At present, the means of assisted reproduction and the capabilities of these procedures has grown at a somewhat dizzying pace. However, thought to the repercussions of the applications of ART are being disregarded to some extent while the public's knowledge and the understanding of embryologists and geneticists surges forward. It is possible given consideration to things such as the morality of these techniques, the unexplored alternative uses of these procedures, and the potential impact they posses that further development is unnecessary and possibly dangerous.
Aldous Huxley’s dystopian Brave New World is more than a warning against the dangers of technology; it is a prediction for the future that rings eerily true. Today we understand that many of the fantastical devices and practices imagined by Huxley are coming to life. Most notable is the practice of in vitro fertilization, something that was a mad scientist’s dream during Huxley’s time, and is today a commonplace practice. According to the National Institutes of Health, in vitro fertilization is “the joining of a woman’s egg and a man’s sperm in a laboratory dish” (Storck). The procedure was first performed successfully in 1978 and has since become widely used today by couples that desire a child and are unable to conceive by “natural” means.
"Reproductive Technologies." Bioethics for Students: How Do We Know What’s Right?, edited by Steven G. Post, vol. 1, Macmillan Reference USA, 1999. Opposing Viewpoints in
Prenatal genetic screening in particular is a polarizing topic of discussion, more specifically, preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD). PGD is one of the two techniques commonly used to genetically screen embryos in vitro; it is usually done at the eight-cell stage of division. PGD is most often performed when there is the risk that one or both parents carry disease-causing mutations. It is extensively used by high-risk individuals trying to conceive babes who will be free of particular mutations. PGD can test for over 50 genetic conditions and even allows for sex selection if there are underlying gender-associated medical conditions. When the results are satisfactory, the selected embryo is implanted into the mother’s uterus. While a controversial technique, preimplantation genetic diagnosis is one example of some of the good genetic testing can do, more benefits will be furthe...
Pray, Leslie A., Ph.D. “Embryo Screening and the Ethics of Human Genetic Engineering.” Nature.com. Nature Publishing Group, 2008. Web. The Web.