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
One thing about natural selection that many people do not understand that natural selection does not increase the odds of survival for a species, but for individuals in that species. This makes sense when someone considers humans. Humans live in many social cultures, where for instance, the odds of survival in a group can be improved by the selection of certain traits that does not improve an individual’s odds of survival. Coyne states, one never sees the type of adaptations that benefit the group to the detriment of an individual (p.122).
Eugenics is a special effort targeted at cultivating the genetic composition of the human race. In history, eugenicists had promoted selective breeding to accomplish goals that were set. Nowadays, we have the proper technology that makes it possible to directly modify the genetic composition of an individual. Nevertheless, people have different views on how to best use this kind of technology. In 1883, a British scholar named Sir Francis Galton, who was also the cousin of Charles Darwin, used the term eugenics, to represent “well-born.” Galton believed that the human race could directly help its future by selectively breeding individuals who have certain “desired” qualities. This idea was constructed on Galton’s study of the upper class in Britain. After the completion of these studies, Galton established that an elite position in society was due to those persons having good genetic makeup. “Galton idea of Eugenics was developed due to Charles Darwin’s theory of Social Darwinism, which explains survival of the fittest, the capability to
The fear of PGD, I believe is a healthy one. We should be afraid that eventually this might become a normal process for parents to choose their child 's genetic traits.
Eugenics, developed by an eminent scientist, Francis Galton, is the science of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population by controlling breeding to increase the occurrence of desirable heritable characteristic traits and decrease the occurrence of undesirable characteristic traits or genetical defects (Bergman, 2000.) Eugenic sterilization refers to the involuntary sterilization of certain categories of individuals without their need for consent by those subjected to the procedure (Pozgar, 2012, Pg. 411.) Individuals classified as mentally deficient, feeble-minded, epileptic, promiscuous, sexual deviants, or persons classified as habitual criminals were mainly targeted (Pozgar, 2012, Pg. 411.) Eugenicists argued degenerate traits tainted society through the reproduction of the lowest class and sterilization was to keep the "handicapped" from perpetuating themselves (Kaelber, 2014.) In addition, eugenicists also argued that "feeble-minded" individuals were believed to be financial burdens to society by overcrowding prisons, hospitals and living off welfare (Kaelber, 2014.) Sterilization was seen as a way to prevent the spending of tax dollars on the "feeble- minded" (Kaelber, 2014.) These arguments allowed Eugenics to become an acceptable practice. Advocates believed that getting rid of the "feeble-minded" and mentally deficient would decrease the undesirable characteristic traits within the human gene pool and ultimately improve the human population.
In recent years genetic modification has been advancing. Genetic modification is when a living organism has been altered to a specific state of characteristics. So far scientist has made one attempt to modify genes from an embryo recently. Whether they were successful or not is question unanswered yet. Gene modification can be great and all. However, is it right to modify genes? Apparently, the population agrees to modify genes since there has been licenses of approval for gene modification. If Society cared about gene modification, then there would be signs of disapproval of gene modification. However, this is viewed morally wrong in my point of view. The pros of modifying genes are that defeating diseases, potential to live longer, genetic diseases, and able to select character traits of babies. The cons of modifying genes are failures on the way to perfecting genetic modification, genetic modification babies can have more greater problems, very expensive, and when does it stop?
Abortion Based on genetic screenings is ultimately a catalyst to a much larger issue that will soon arrive if nothing is done to prevent it. The effects of allowing abortion based on genetics are largely consequential in that, the ideology that some lives are more valuable than others would emerge, as well as the lesser treatment of those with genetic defects. Although the idea of removing these defects from the world inherently is good, what it would do to those who slip through and are born with them would be tremendously detrimental. In order to prevent the value of human life being measured at different levels, it is necessary that genetically reasoned abortion be removed.
This was not available during Hitler’s Nazi regime in World War II, who instead sought to eradicate those with “bad genetics,” so PGD is categorically a welcome approach. However, the debate lies in, what is considered a harmful disease? There is alarming concern that:
Any additional embryos with no genetic issues can be frozen for later use if the parents decide to do so. In contrast, embryos with any problematic genes are destroyed. The PGD technology is used to help destroy numerous diseases in order for the doctors to combat them, and to help create a healthy baby. There has been much debate over the extent to which it is justifiable for the US government to allow the use of PGD in the United States. One of these topics that raises debate includes the high price of performing PGD through IVF. Couples around the United States have been paying clinics or fertility centers for PGD because of their fears of passing on diseases to their offspring. The average cost for one cycle of In-Vitro Fertilization is around 1,000 dollars (Gurevich 1). This cost excludes PGD, which is an additional 3,000 dollars. Although the cost of the procedure is excessive, the outcomes are well worth
I believe Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD) should be allowed and accepted. It allows for a family to see what medical problems their child will endure if born. Both parents should agree to do this because one might not want to know and doesn’t care what problems their child might have. With this knowledge a couple will have the power to decide on whether to move on with having a baby or maybe decide to adopt one. PGD is controversial because it is done after conception; many feel that if the couple decides to kill the embryo it is still abortion. I feel as if everyone should have a choice, so if some people choose to abort it that’s fine. I wouldn’t want my baby to be born with a bunch of diseases that will restrict him from being like other kids or that will keep him in a hospital for most of his life. Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis is a good idea and it informs the parents what their and their child’s future will be like.
In 2004 the term “Genetic Babies” made it from sci-fi movies and weblogs to the Oxford dictionary which reflects the term becoming part of our everyday culture. The process can change genes, traits and defect particular defects, and ensure a healthy start to a child’s life. The forever growing strength of genetic technology may one day allow parents to adapt their unborn children, in order to spare their descendants from disease or, conceivably, make them tall, well-muscled, intellectual or otherwise gifted with appealing traits. However along with any new medical, high-tech treatment there is bounteous amounts of advantages and disadvantages that follow. Are the technologies of genetic modification safe
It was already odd enough that natural selection did not work in the favor of the species, but it difficult to imagine that natural selection does not work for a species that might have been better suited for the various biomes on Earth. Its amazing to see that we are here when other events could have played out.
PGD was mainly designed to allow couples with the risk of passing on a dangerous genetic diseases to have children that wouldn't be affected by it. It’s been used since 1990 to prevent children from being born with Down’s syndrome, Tay-Sachs disease, cystic fibrosis, sickle cell, and Huntington’s disease. It is now being used to also create “savior siblings”, which are children who are able to donate bone marrow and other tissues to their sick older siblings (Genetic and Society). This goes against many religious views, one of them being Christian. Christians see it as “playing God” since God has created humans in his own image and to alter them would be implying that he is wrong. Catholics’ and Muslims both believe that embryonic research is the same as abortion and it is considered a sin for scientists to perform genetic engineering since it is as if they are trying to replace God (HubPages). This technology not only goes against many religious beliefs, but also goes against natural selection. As seen in My Sister’s Keeper, Anna is created through genetic selection and considered to be a “designer baby” which are babies who have specifically selected traits (Picoult 119). This demonstrates too much control because technology is now altering the way of life and it interferes with the natural processes. Even today, control is not only seen in technology, but in families. The question is, to what extent can a parent have control over their
However, another issue with PGD is that it itself is quite expensive, it costs approximately $13,000. This means that the wealthy may be the only ones who are able to afford the screening. “If the likelihood of genetic disease in the wealthy decreases and other citizens do not have access to PGD, will genetic disease perhaps be associated only with the economically unprivileged?” This problem, however, is somewhat resolved in New Zealand as the government usually funds the first two cycles. In some countries, such as the United States, Mexico, Italy, and Thailand, it is legal to chose the gender of the embryo through PGD. This is a major ethical implication, and many countries have banned it, including New Zealand and Australia. If this is allowed, it shows the beginning of creating ‘designer babies’, as parents are able to chose the gender. It is thought that if this is allowed, then eventually parents will be able to choose other features, such as eye colour and hair colour. Also, if the gender is able to be chosen, then it could cause a gender imbalance. In some cultures and societies, one gender is