Assisted Reproduction - 1

A Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD) is a test that “allows future parents to detect genetic defects that cause inherited disease in human embryos before they are implanted.” One of the most ethical questions that one might ask before considering the PGD is whether the benefits of genetic knowledge outweigh harmful effects that occur to the embryo? Is it really worth manipulating embryos genes in order to achieve the desire of the parents? Often times we have to take into considerations the risk and benefits of each situation. I believe that the PGD test should be only be done to detect genetic defects, but it should not be used to manipulate genes in order to make what to them is a “perfect” child. As stated in our text, “ In the united Kingdom alteration of an embryos genes, even for gene therapy or cloning embryos is illegal.” By manipulating genes its like going against Gods wishes. In the eyes of God every person that comes into this world is equally seen as a human being because they are all created in “ the image of God.” In this case the parents should not be allowed to manipulate the genes of their unborn child just to accommodate to their

Making big choices in life can be difficult, especially if that big choice is having children. There are many men and women who are infertile that still want to have children. Most decide to adopt other children who do not have families or their families do not want them. But when adoption is not an option, there is now a way where those men and women can have their own children together through fertility treatments. Fertility treatments could be a good thing:being able to freeze egg and sperm, they can help infertile couples, and avoiding transmitted diseases would be easier.

PGD is known as pre-implantation genetic diagnosing. I do not think it is ethical to design and conceive a child that meets specific genetic requirements. I do not feel that this is an ethical reason to conceive a child. Rather, I believe all children should be seen as blessings or gifts, not sacrificial genetic progeny.

There are people who disagree on the morality of using human embryonic cells, and stem cell research in general, nonetheless. Some stubborn pro-life organizations insist that the destruction of the “blastocyst, which is a laboratory-fertilized human egg” (White), is on the same level as murdering a human child and is entirely immoral and unacceptable. Even if these embryonic cells are being used to save lives and cure diseases, they believe it is wrong because the cells were taken at the cost of a

In this case study a couple by the name of Michelle and Brian Clifford decided to conceive a child after a few years of the marriage. After five years of trying with no results they consulted a fertility expert and it was found that Michelle was unable to have children naturally so they decided to try IVF treatments. Michelle’s eggs were harvested and introduced to Brain’s sperm in the laboratory. After a few days four embryos were implanted into Michelle and the other seven were placed in a freezer for further use. The first IVF procedure was unsuccessful and during the following years of the IVF treatments Michelle’s and Brian were having marital issues. They filed for divorce and Brian wanted to donate the embryos for research and Michelle

Another ethical debate reigns in the choice for HD patients to have children and in prenatal screening for HD. Since HD is generally not diagnosed until later in life, many patients have children before their HD diagnosis (Ethical issues of genetic diagnosis, 2007). The children of one parent with HD have a 50% chance of developing the disease themselves. However, if a patient tests positive for the gene that causes Huntington's disease before having children, conflicts could arise between partners about whether or not to even have children (Ethical issues of genetic diagnosis, 2007 and Tassicker, Savulescu, Skene, Marshall, Fitzgerald & Delatycki, 2003). The predictive genetic test for HD can also be performed before a baby is born. If

Chile's health system has been evolving rapidly in recent years. The assigned role of the Chilean Medical Association has focused on medical ethics codes, and laws. Social organizations have emerged during the last decade and have been working together with the Chilean Fertility Society to change public health policies and attitudes in order to increase the access of people to modern reproductive technology. The current government has passed the August Law which decriminalizes abortion under three circumstances, the government also signed the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), which establishes safe healthcare as a human right.(6) “Today, women have won, democracy has won, all of Chile has won,” said Bachelet(2). On the other hand, Reproductive technology, assisted reproductive technology (ART), is utilized but faces opposition from factors of social-religious conservatism, and gender-based discrimination. While reproductive technologies can be accessed by those who can afford out of pocket funding, most of the population relies on public healthcare, resulting in less than 4% of the population receiving treatment.(5) In this sense, more research of reproductive technologies, specifically mitochondrial transfer, should be reliant on biomedical research of genetic on bioethical levels, as gene therapy is authorized only for the purpose of treating diseases or preventing their appearance(4). In this sense, the mitochondrial

These procedures also require many embryos in which the majority do not survive. The killing of an embryo is unethical and violates the CST teaching of life and divinity of a human person. The ability to design babies is unethical and should not be something that parents can decide for their babies and their future generations. Designing the abilities and traits of a baby would ensure a better life with less hardships.

Currently it is only legally possible to carry out two types of advanced reproductive technologies on humans. The first involves choosing the sperm to fertilize the egg, which will determine the sex and the genes of the baby. The second technique screens embryos for a genetic disease and only selected embryos are implanted back into the mother’s womb. This is called Pre-implantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD).

Reproductive technologies are becoming more common the quicker modern medicine evolves. Although there are many different issues revolving ART, Sally Sheldon argues in her article Reproductive Technologies and the Legal Determination of Fatherhood, the challenges that arise in granting status of parenthood creates tension in the courtrooms. Since the 1990’s questions over custody and parental responsibilities have been asked towards children born out of assisted reproduction technologies. If a parent were to pass away before an embryo is implanted or born, do they get recognized as the mother or father?

Another way that same-sex couples can become parents is through assisted reproductive technology. These technologies involve in vitro fertilization, intrauterine insemination, intracervical insemination, and the “do-it yourself” method. That being said, homosexuals should have the same access to these technologies that heterosexual couples do. Same-sex couples and couples with fertility issues struggle to have families. But the struggle does not end with reproductive technology. A lot of times a surrogate mother or a donor is involved. That makes it a three parent situation. Therefore, if a surrogate mother decides she wants to keep the baby then that just introduces a whole lot more drama in the parent’s life. Assisted Reproductive Technology

The use of preimplantation genetic diagnosis, used during in vitro fertilization, for medical screening and sex pre-selection is ethical so as long as it is done for the child’s best interest and not for superficial desires of the parents. Every year, around 3,945,875 babies are born in the United States (NIH, 2017). Unfortunately, 12.1% of women ages 15-44 and 8% of men ages 25 to 44 struggle with infertility issues (CDC, 2016). It is also challenging for gay and lesbian couples to become parents in which one is biologically related by using their gametes (Wittenstein, 2016). Luckily, there are several medical advancements that help individuals become pregnant. A controversial medical advancement that is commonly used is known as In-Vitro

The principle of nonmaleficence, to do no harm, in reproductive technology can be applied to the prospective parents and the prospective child-the embryo. The procedures involved in attempting to impregnate a woman can be physically and emotionally damaging, but rewarding if done successfully. But the parties must first determine to what extent and at what cost will they risk to achieve their ultimate goal. It would cause great harm physically to the embryos if there were multiple unsuccessful attempts, but many would argue that the end outweighs the means, that it is worth it if the result was a viable pregnancy and healthy child.

Disability rights advocates have great concern about such procedures that eliminate so called “disabilities”. Many argue that the healthy wellbeing of a disabled child is often easily disregarded as limited and disadvantageous, when really many people with disabilities lead full and satisfying lives7. They argue that PGD is a form of genetic discrimination, particularly against disabled people. Professor Mark Henaghan, dean of faculty law Otago University and member of Advisory Committee on Assisted Reproductive Technology (ACART), states that PGD is indeed a form of discrimination. "If you choose an embryo that doesn't have a certain gene, you're discriminating against that defect. It's really a question of whether you think there is any great

Artificial reproductive technology (ART) is defined as procedures which stimulate a woman 's ovaries to produce eggs, the eggs are then removed, combined with sperm, and then returned to a woman 's body (Bell, 2016). ART is becoming more and more popular throughout that globe. This method of conceiving children gives women who may be struggling with infertility options that were not possible before the advent of such methods. ART is relevant to the sociological definition of global health because it is evidence of the fact that our world has become interdependent especially when it comes to medical technology. However with ART comes the notion of the culture of disguise and in many countries this is an integral part of artificial reproductive technology process. With that being said, sociologists should look to study and understand the culture of disguise in ART as it pertains to global health and it shapes interactions between people and the society they live in.