IVF Ethics: Should an Embryo be Rejected Because It's Potentially "Sick"?
The more science provides folks techniques to manage infertility such as through invitro fertilization and then implantation and the more science also provides tools to determine before the embryo is implanted whether or not the embryo is "potentially sick" because it is carrying a serious genetic defect (preimplantation genetic diagnosis), society is faced with further ethical and legal dilemmas. Such a dilemma can be developed from the example above: should prospective parents who desire to have a child by undergoing invitro fertilization be required under law to first have their embryo diagnosed for a genetic defect and if a serious genetic defect is found, they be compelled to reject implantation? Could it be argued that such attempt at diagnosis and subsequent rejection be considered under law and ethics as in the potential child's "best interest"? And, perhaps in the best interest of the future generations if this embryo was allowed to mature, be born and survive long enough to have its own children? On the other hand, is the general ethical and legal principle of parents "acting in the best interest of their child does not mean choosing the 'best child'"? The expression in quotes is the title of a rebuttal by L.S.Flicker in response to a view set by Malek and Daar discussed in the current April 2012 issue of American Journal of Bioethics. But what is your thought on this subject? ..Maurice.
posted by Maurice Bernstein, M.D. @ 1:28:00 PM
6 comments
6 Comments:
We would be tampering with evolution,to heck with
Charles Darwins theories of evolution and the origin of
the species. Adaptation, natural selection, central to
where we came from,where we are going.
Are we just visitors in the large scheme of the cosmos or are we part of the grand picture. Do we eliminate the negative components of our offspring, thereby assuring a perfect outcome. My question, if you had no need to adapt, would you evolve? Assuming your offspring were normal and a simple life, no hunting and gathering and no competition for a food source.
Are our genes programmed to evolve wether we
participate or not. Did neanderthal become extinct, or
did they simply evolve and become absorbed.
PT
PT, obviously you believe that nature should be responsible for the evolutionary changes of the human and not the humans themselves. But, another way of looking at the issue is that nature has evolved a human with the capacity for the human itself to aid and facilitate nature's evolution of mankind. Thus, denying Man to carry out this function is in essence hindering Mother Nature's evolutionary function. ..Maurice.
Dr B
The environment plays a central part in the
evolutionary process through adaptation,i.e,Pangea
and the various species that evolved solely due to
confinement,restricted from participation in the gene
pool. We ought not involve ourselves in the alteration
of evolution,not at this point in the evolutionary time
scale.
For those seeking IVF, PGD should not be an option. Nor should it be an option for women who seek
such information prior to normal delivery. My opinion
suggests I am pro-life, quite the contrary. As a male,
I have no opinion on the matter. It's purely mathematics,
as genes will express and only deprives biotechnology
and medicine the opportunity for further study of these
derivatives of gene expression.
PT
PT, I presume you would have the same argument with regard to changing the genetic patterns of animals, particularly those which are consumed by humans. Do you have the same "hands off" view regarding genetic manipulation within the plant kingdom even if such investigation and changing the genes would be in the best interest of mankind?
Do you see a difference between "passive" manipulation of genetic patterns by preventing the development of certain embryos versus the active changes already being carried out with animals and plants? Or are they both anti-nature and will be harmful towards all living creatures in the very long run? ..Maurice.
Maurice
I have often asked myself, what is the ultimate
goal of evolution? Maybe there are no eventual goals
and that it's just perpetual mathematics at play. We see
this in the Fibonacci series,progeny of rabbits,the
divine proportion,and leaf divergence.
As proposed by H. Spencer, "survival of the
fittest". Morally, I have concerns about this aspect
of evolution. True, it's been suggested that survival
of the fittest has been shown to produce dominant
groups, such as Neanderthal,which I mentioned early
in this thread.
Moreover, survival of the fittest provides some
justification that instills a standard that is a detriment
of the weak. An unborn child with a birth defect certainly
would not fall into the category as the fittest,thus that
gene pool is eliminated. It's ethically wrong!
On the subject of adaptation, stellar evolution
says the sun will become a red giant in 500 million years,expanding to Mars and essentially burning all
the planets to a crisp. As I see it we have three options,
travel to another planetary system, a u-haul moving
nightmare. Accept our fate,or move earth from within
our solar system,create a star from the gaseous
planets Saturn, Uranus and Neptune. Now that's
my kind of adaptation.
PT
Yes Hospice is a nightmare from hell. I am still in shock about what they did to my precious dad. All he bad you have read here is true it happened to us. We were blindsided,
Post a Comment
<< Home