More handpicked essays just for you.
Ethical dilemmas for reproductive technology
Introducing essays on assisted reproductive technology
Ethical dilemmas for reproductive technology
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Ethical dilemmas for reproductive technology
Consult the textbook, Chapter 5. Write a coherent document in which you answer the following questions. What is the Paradox of Harm? Apply it to creation of babies by IVF or cloning. What is the Paradox of harm? According to the textbook the paradox of harm is the idea that someone can be harmed just by being born. This idea is used because some people think that when using in vitro fertilization the chances of the child or children having disabilities is raised and if a women has a child or children and knows that they will most likely have a disability should the parents be held responsible for not terminating the pregnancy. I think that there are many different reasons that people could be for or against IVF or cloning, but I think most of people concerns come from not being very well educated on the subject. In my opinion I think that one of the main reasons people are against IVF or cloning of embryos is that there is a higher chance of an abortion. During in vitro fertilization there is a chance of multiple pregnancies and if there are multiple babies a lot of times the doctors will recommend a reduction of babies because of the likely hood of disabilities in the …show more content…
In my opinion it was very sad reading the stories of the older women who decided to become pregnant through IVF and ended up passing away when their child or children wasn 't even eighteen years old. It takes a lot to take care of a child and it would not be easy for anyone to take care of a child at the age of some of the women in the examples in the textbook. Children need someone who can run and play and properly take care of them and I do not think any normal elderly man or women would be able to do that. Again some could use the argument of the paradox of harm for these situations of elderly women having babies because they can not properly give them the attention they
Therapeutic cloning is the process whereby parts of a human body are grown independently from a body from STEM cells collected from embryos for the purpose of using these parts to replace dysfunctional ones in living humans. Therapeutic Cloning is an important contemporary issue as the technology required to conduct Therapeutic Cloning is coming, with cloning having been successfully conducted on Dolly the sheep. This process is controversial as in the process of collecting STEM cells from an embryo, the embryo will be killed. Many groups, institutions and religions see this as completely unacceptable, as they see the embryo as a human life. Whereas other groups believe that this is acceptable as they do not believe that the embryo is a human life, as well as the fact that this process will greatly benefit a large number of people. In this essay I will compare the view of Christianity who are against Therapeutic Cloning with Utilitarianism who are in favour of Therapeutic Cloning.
Recent high profile cases, films and books all around the world including the UK, Australia and the United States have brought to the public’s attention a new type of IVF. ‘Embryo Selection’ meaning ‘Embryos are fertilised outside the body and only those with certain genes are selected and implanted in the womb.’ Henceforth meaning that doctors are now able to select specific embryo’s and implant them into the mother of who may have another sick child in order to gain genetic material such as bone marrow which will match the ill-fated child and therefore hopefully be able to save their life. Creating a ‘saviour sibling’. ‘A child conceived through selective in vitro fertilization as a potential source of donor organs or cells for an existing brother or sister with a life-threatening medical condition’ a definition given by Oxford Dictionaries (1.0). Cases of this are happening all around the globe and many are highly documented about. The most famous case could be noted as in the fictional book of ‘My Sisters Keeper’ By Jodi Picoult. I will further discuss this throughout my dissertation and how books and films can affect the view on certain ethical subjects. Furthermore, I am also going to discuss a range of factors such as certain religious beliefs and the physical creation of saviour siblings compared to the creation of designer babies. Strong views are held by many both for and against the creation of saviour siblings.
This article was my least favorite article out of these set of readings. The author explains how much pain and suffering women went thought before and during the 1930’s. Being a mother and a wife women went thought a lot due to the lack of resources. Margret Sanger explains how women are having risk pregnancies which cause them to become ill. Women wanted ways to stop having babies. However the doctors were basically saying it was not up to the husband. Overall I agree with Sanger, women should be informed of contraception and their bodies.
In Dan Marquis’ article, “Why Abortion is Immoral”, he argues that aborting a fetus is like killing a human being already born and it deprives them of their future. Marquis leaves out the possible exceptions to abortion that include: a threat to the mom’s life, contraceptives, and pregnancy by rape. First, I will explain Marquis’ pro-life argument in detail about his statements of why abortion is morally wrong. Like in many societies, killing an innocent human being is considered morally wrong, just like in the United States. Second, I will state my objection to Marquis’ argument by examining the difference between a human being’s already born future compared to a potential fetus’s future.
Laura Purdy gives the example of Huntington’s disease, which she relates it to all other genetic disorders, it is an autosomal dominant trait, meaning that it has a fifty percent chance of being passed down from generation to generation. Huntington’s disease occurs between the ages of thirty too fifty. It is a progressive disease that leads to constant contractions and irregular movements of the body eventually resulting in death. Purdy’s reasoning for her claim that it is immoral to reproduce without prenatal screening is because of genetic diseases like Huntington’s disease, it makes an average person become subjected to prolong suffering. Purdy also thinks that passing down a genetic disease like Huntington’s without their consent and risking their welfare is wrong because we aren’t taking the future being into account.
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,
One of these ethical issues is regarding the use of fertility drugs. These drugs such as Pergonal, can trigger ovulation and increase the production of eggs which will increase a woman’s chances of conception. Often, these fertility drugs escalate the chances of multiple births that can lead to possible risk for both the mother and fetuses. Possible risk for carrying more than one fetus includes premature birth; long periods of hospital stays after birth as well as a higher risk one or more of these children will have some kind of serious disability or brain damage. In Greg Pence’s essay “The McCaughey Septuplets: God’s Will or Human Choice?” Pence says “the human uterus did not emerge in evolution to bear litters and that large multiple births are unnatural” (87). Doctors often recommend “selective reduction” (88) of all but a couple of the embryos to reduce the risk to the mother and fetus however many mothers refuse instead believing that the end results are “God’s will”. He makes a good point saying if it were “God’s will” then there would be “no need for fertility...
"This is the heart of our struggle over abortion, for it is a struggle between gods." said United Methodist pastor Reverend Marc Rogers. "The worship of this false god, the god of abstraction, is killing us literally - - killing not only unborn children, but killing our nation and our church." The FIGO Committee for the Study of Ethical Aspects for Human Reproduction does not agree with this view. "Selective reduction of a multiple pregnancy is not an abortion procedure because the intention is that the pregnancy continues," says the Committee. In many cases, if no fetuses are aborted, all of the fetuses will die. A couple that has had their first success at getting pregnant after a long time of infertility, whether by in vetro fertilization or through sex, is not guaranteed to have a second chance at having children. Often, a fetus in the womb will contract disease that could potentially spread to the others, also causing risk for failure. Using selective reduction to increase the chances of having any children at all instead of no children should not be looked down upon by anyone.
Brannigan, C. Michael. Ethical Issues in Human Cloning. New York: Seven Bridges Press, Chatham House Publishers, 2001.
In order to strongly argue against cloning, there must be an understanding of its process and what exactly it is. Simply stated, a clone is a duplicate just like a photocopy. A good example of such “copies” that occur are identical twins, which are duplicates of each other. “The first step of DNA cloning is to isolate a complete gene and is to chromosomal sequences and then to gradually begin flaking the chromosomal sequences of a single DAN molecule. Then the DNA clone can be electronically labeled and used as a probe to isolate the chromosomal sequences from a collection of different types of genes, which should contain cloned sequences that would represent the whole gene. This action will produce new sets of cloned cells identical to the mother cell. The new set of cells are isolated and likewise the simplified process is repeated all over again until the cells form a complete organ. In order to produce a complete organism the DNA must be altered in a variety of way to come out with the finished product to be the complete organism.” In simple terms, a cell is taken from a donor woman. Then an unfertilized egg is taken from a second woman. The DNA from the cell is removed and transferred to the egg. The egg is then implanted into a surrogate mother. The resulting baby is genetically identical to the original donor.
In vitro fertilization is a process where a couple donates their sperm and egg to a lab who then optimizes the fertilization process and then inserts the embryos back into the woman in hopes of achieving pregnancy. Couples will typically decide to do this when they are infertile but still would like to a have a child of their own. There are other options out there, chiefly adoption, but this procedure is not immoral. Anti-IVF people can have claims against the procedure, but many of those claims are only viable prima façade as many of those arguments are sentimental. Generally, IVF is not immoral since it a legal medical procedure that give infertile couples the opportunity to have their own child. IVF is a decision both parties have to willingly
An important scientific argument for IVF is that, by studying fertilization and early embryonic development outside the womb, scientists might learn more about how to prevent certain birth defects (1). This proves that IVF could actually make improvements in medical advances, especially in regards to prenatal care. This is just one example of how IVF can actually be beneficial to the community. The only times that babies are malformed or sick are when the mother puts more than one baby in her uterus. Multiple fetuses increase the chance of birth defects because they have a greater chance of preterm birth, which is associated with long-term health. The long-term illnesses are cerebral palsy, mental illness, and blindness (Reddy 1). With this in mind, having single births is very safe and those babies are still healthy today, just like Sarah and Maggie Marshall’s baby. Single births are also very highly recommended by medical personnel. Going back to the first test tube baby the Browns were expecting, and Steptoe (the doctor) thought that this baby would be a failure. When they did a cesarean on July 25, 1978, a beautiful baby girl was born at 5 pounds and 12 ounces. After the baby was born, the doctor recalled that
One of these moral dilemmas is that genetic engineering changes the traditional dynamic that occurs between the parent and the offspring. This issue arose over the possibility of having a human embryo with three genetic parents which is now possible due to genetic engineering. The procedure in question “involves transplanting the chromosomes from a single-cell embryo or from an unfertilized egg into a donor egg or embryo from which the chromosomes have been removed”(Foht). The procedure itself is very useful for women with mitochondrial disorders but the issue involved with this is that the embryo would technically have three biological parents. There needs to be a real concern about “the way genetic engineering can alter the relationship between the generations from one of parents accepting the novelty and spontaneous uniqueness of their children to one where parents use biotechnology to choose and control the biological nature of their children”(Foht). There is a special relationship between children and their parents that may be disappearing very soon due to these techniques. Children could be born never truly knowing one of their genetic parents. If these procedures continue to prosper people will have to “accept arrangements that split apart the various biological and social aspects of parenthood, and that deliberately create
Finally, human cloning for reproductive purposes is too expensive. The cost to clone one human could be more than $100,000 (Herper). That is extremely high considering the cost of in vitro fertilization. In vitro fertilization costs between $3,500 and $25,000 depending on the procedure (Advanced Fertility Services). If someone could not become pregnant it is much more likely that they would chose to use fertilization and be guaranteed a healthy, normal child rather than spend the money to clone a child that could have defects. With fertilization costing only one fourth of cloning, why would someone choose to clone?
However to pick the side I agree with most, I would have to side in favor of in vitro fertilization. It seems to me that there are a fair amount more incredible results that can come from it than negative ones. That being said I do believe it should be regulated in some form or another. The United Kingdom has a group called the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, HFEA for short, which regulates and oversees in vitro fertilization and pre-implantation genetic diagnosis. They make sure parents are not truly trying to have a ‘designer’ baby or create a perfect child. They control and authorize clinics and businesses that deal with IVF and PGD in the UK (“About the HFEA”). I think that the United States should have an agency just like the HFEA so in vitro fertilization can be regulated and cannot be used for just any