In America, we are groomed from childhood to believe that one day we will grow up and have children. This is instilled in our youth through children’s toys such as baby dolls that teach young girls to care for a child and by playing ‘house’. Sadly, for many this is an unattainable goal. Due to medical complications or inability to find a suitable mate, many must resort to other means, such as adoption or artificial insemination to reach this goal. However, even with these alternatives, many remain unable to become parents. Science may be able to change this through the use of In Vitro Gametogenesis.
Claim: The United States Federal Government should fund research for In Vitro Gametogenesis (IVG).
Grounds: The use of In Vitro Gametogenesis will help many families who dream of procreating but are physically incapable of doing so. IVG would allow a sperm cell or an egg to be created out of stem cells. This would enable women with fertility issues, cancer survivors with reproductive issues, women beyond
…show more content…
Bitzer stated that exigence, which was capable of modification by way of discourse was needed (Herrick, 2016). As IVG research raises many ethical questions, its use in human analysis has been delayed. Questions of morality are raised concerning whether same sex couples should be able to procreate biologically, as well as whether the ability to choose genetic traits for offspring would put couples who can afford the treatment method at an unfair advantage over individuals who cannot afford such methods. Additionally, the question rises of whether the embryos that are created but not used in the procreation should be destroyed, donated, or frozen (Bourne, Douglas, & Savulescu, 2012). As these questions are based on morality and ethics, as opposed to statistics and data, they can be resolved through rhetorical dialogue and
In the article “Selecting the Perfect Baby: The Ethics of “Embryo Design,” is an article about a married couple, name Larry and June Shannon. They have a daughter, four years old, name Sally, who is diagnosed with Fanconi Anemia. Therefore, the Shannons are getting help from a research team, to find the perfect bone marrow transplant for Sally. The Shannon couple is also interested in having another child and they are aware of the risks and odds of success. However, a PGD process has to be performed and the couple must undergo an IVF procedure more than once, before the implantation is successful, to be able to produce a healthy full-term baby.
| Given the contentious debate surrounding issues of procreation, develop an institutional policy, which can be applied to the range of treatment and research issues related to procreation.
A moral justification for genetic treatment is only as accurate as the justification of disease. In the realms of objective science and the use of genetic testing, Kitcher argues that the basis for terminating a pregnancy due to a severe syndrome can also lead to the basis for termination due to an undesired sex or possibly even homosexuality. Ultimately, Kitcher supports only a minimalist approach to the use of
We know that many have made expansive claims for the benefits of human embryo research. However, all such claims are conjectural. Embryonic stem cell research has not helped a single human patient or demonstrated any therapeutic benefit. At the same time, adult stem cells have helped hundreds of thousands of patients and new
Gina Kolata’s article, Ethics Questions Arise as Genetic Testing of Embryos Increases (2014), explains that as the increase of the testing of embryos for parents to choose whether or not to have children has also brought its ethical questions in the light. Kolata uses the Kalinskys case, a family in the article, and how their neurological disease, Gerstmann-Straussler-Schinker (GSS), has raised questions for ethicists who have looked into the case. Kolata’s purpose in writing this article is to inform the audience on the growing topic of embryo testing and also the ethical question that also accompany in order to have the audience to develop a personal view on the issue. Given how the author explains the technical terms used within the article, Kolata is writing to an audience that is not fully aware of genetic testing.
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.
Medical professionals today can screen for certain genetic traits (genetic diseases and sex) with in vitro fertilization and preimplantation genetic diagnosis to obtain a healthy child, and reproductive technology continues to improve. With this in mind, the question arises whether sex selection is ethical. Julian Savulescu, Uehiro Professor of Practical Ethics at Oxford University, argues that sex selection is moral, based on his ethical principle of Procreative Beneficence: that “couples (or single reproducers) should select the child, of the possible children they could have, who is expected to have the best life, or at least as good a life as the others, based on the relevant, available information” [Savulescu 1]. Savulescu claims
Recent debate concerns using cells in the process of infertility treatments. Scientists are most eager to work with them because they can generate all kinds of tissues a body may need and help repair damaged and diseased organs. This could offer hope to millions who have many medical disorders. But antiabortion activists argue against this type of research.
New technological advances and scientific methods continue to change the course of nature. One of the current controversial advances in science and technology is the use of genetically modified embryos in which the study exceeds stem cell research. Scientists have begun planning for research involving human embryos in the genetic modification field. Many technological developments are responsible for improving our living standards and even saving lives, but often such accomplishments have troubling cultural and moral ramifications (Reagan, 2015). We are already beyond the days in which virtually the only procreative option was for a man and a woman to conceive the old-fashioned way (Reagan, 2015). Genetic modification of human embryos can be perceived as a positive evolution in the medical process yet it is surrounded by controversy due to ethical processes. Because this form of genetic modification could affect later born children and their offspring, the protection of human subjects should be a priority in decisions about whether to proceed with such research (Dresser, 2004). The term Human Genetic Engineering was originally made public in 1970. During this time there were several methods biologists began to devise in order to better identify or isolate clone genes for manipulation in several species or mutating them in humans.
The first step towards embryonic stem cell research is obtaining the embryos. Currently, most embryos used in stem cell research are spare embryos from In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) treatment (de Wert & Mummery, 2003). This is because using the embryos for research is a better option than discarding them as medical waste. Besides donating or destroying the embryos, couples can also opt to let other couples adopt the embryos or continue to store them, which can get expensive (Fischbach & Fischbach, 2004). Along with treating infertility, the embryos are used for researching potential therapies. While donating embryos to research avoids the wasting of embryos, there are concerns about the quality of spare embryos. Embryos with the highest chance of resulting in a pregnancy will be chosen for the IVF treatment, potentially leaving less durable embryos as spares (de Wert & Mummery, 2003). This leads to researchers preferring to generate new embryos and embryonic cell lines for their own studies. While using spare embryos to further our knowledge in health and science is approved of, knowingly creating an embryo with the intention of destroying it, even for research, is
In vitro fertilisation (IVF) marks a great step forward in medical technology, and Australia is a leader in the field. IVF is now a popular procedure for couples who are infertile or are having trouble conceiving. However, it raises ethical, moral and legal issues including the rights of an individual, property rights, the definition of human life, scientific experimentation versus a potential human life, religion, costs, and community, medical and taxpayer’s rights.
associated with the use of advanced assisted reproductive technology (Teays&Purdy, 2001, Bioethics,Justice,&Health Care,p.648).Currently, the number of in vitro fertilization procedures that can be performed by 100 heath-care workers is about 1,000 per year. Any implication of medical and laboratory procedures that could improve results would decrease the number of healthcare workers needed and ultimately lower the cost per procedure (Teays&Purdy, 2001, Bioethics,Justice,&Health Care,p648).
With new technologies available everyday, it seems almost as if we can customize our children. Reproduction is no longer an outcome of random and inherited genes, but now it’s a process of creating the child that we want to have. Fertility clinics are in debate as to whether or not it is ethical to be able to determine the sex of our children. Some view this as a valid option, while others see it as another step down the road to designer babies. But how far is too far? That is a question that we can only answer for ourselves. While this article remains unbiased, we are able to form our own opinion after seeing the pros and cons of both sides.
Many couples that are infertile still have a great desire to create a new life however the current method in vitro fertilization is very often ineffective. In fact it only results in a healthy pregnancy 10% of the time. However cloning could be much more effective. Contrary
IVF raises many of these difficult moral issues. If the above conceptions about the nature of ethics were correct, however, discussion of these issues would either be futile (because morality is a matter of personal choice or opinion) or superfluous (because morality is what a divine or secular authority says it is) (Walters 23). In this paper, I want to suggest that it is not only possible, but also necessary to inquire into the ethics of such practices as IVF because the fact that we can do something does not mean that we ought to do it.