John F Klner's Arguments Against Pgd

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

embryo does not justify the means. On the other side of the debate are many scientists and

The primary argument against this new form of research is that scientists are growing live human beings in a lab. Some argue that because the child is growing in a petri dish and not a womb, it is no longer human. They argue that birth is a key part in the formation of a person, and since the children being grown are never birthed, they are no longer a human. Moreover, some religious protestors claim that the babies grown will never have a soul because ensoulment occurs in the womb. They are unable to say what will happen to a child without a soul, but argue that the children will never have a chance to go to heaven. “Young human beings, especially in their unique vulnerability during early stages of development, are ‘ends’ in themselves, entitled to unconditional respect and protection, not ‘means’ to be utilized to achieve other goals, even when those goals may be lofty and high-minded,” says Father Tad Pacholczyk, director of education at the National Catholic Bioethics Center (PBS) This the Church’s extreme disapproval of this research. Furthermore, some opposers claim that once the embryo becomes an “individual,” it is murder to destroy it, yet it is also unethical to continue growing it. Therefore, regulations must be kept where they currently are, if not made stricter. The only solution that satisfies all aspects of the Church’s disapproval is the halting of embryonic research. However, this is

Sarah Alsamarai is a university student who conducted a research report on PGD. Although she shared her concerns she was overall for PGD. She said that PGD can be used as an effective tool to prevent the birth of a seriously ill child. Her opinion was that parents should have the right to use existing embryo screening tests to determine all possible characteristics of offspring. Unless a tangible harm to

The act of removing an embryo or fetus before it can survive outside the uterus raises major issues. From these aborted children, embryonic stem cells or ESC’s, can be withdrawn out of the embryo and planted into adults. Embryonic stem cells are pluripotent stem cells derived from the inner cell mass of a blastocyst, an early-stage preimplantation embryo. Isolating the embryoblast results in destruction of the blastocyst, this raises ethical issues, including whether or not embryos at the preimplantation stage should be considered to have the same moral or legal status as more developed human beings. We have to discuss and decide on some of the obstacles which must be overcome before large scale clinical trials can be considered and whether

The embryos to be destroyed by researchers in this campaign are at the same stage of development as embryos in the womb who have been protected as human subjects in federally funded research since 1975.(4) President Clinton's National Bioethics Advisory Commission (NBAC) and its 1994 predecessor, the NIH Human Embryo Research Panel, conceded that the early human embryo is a form of developing human life that deserves our respect(5). Treating human life as mere research material is no way to show respect.

This proposal is immoral because it violates a central tenet of all civilized codes on human experimentation beginning with the Nuremberg Code: It approves doing deadly harm to a member of the human species solely for the sake of potential benefit to others. The embryos to be destroyed by researchers in this campaign are at the same stage of development as embryos in the womb who have been protected as human subjects in federally funded research since 1975.(4) President Clinton's National Bioethics Advisory Commission (NBAC) and its 1994 predecessor, the NIH Human Embryo Research Panel, conceded that the early human embryo is a form of developing human life that deserves our respect(5). Treating human life as mere research material is no way to show respect.

Reproductive technology has advanced in recent years and with that advancement has come a debate on what is ethical, moral or beneficial to those who are involved. Applying the principles of ethics to reproductive technologies can aid health professionals toward the best outcome for everyone involved. With applying the ethic principles, one must first choose whose welfare that is being considered-the potential parents, the embryo, or both? An embryo is not able to convey autonomy, but people still consider its welfare anyway. There are existing conflicts as to when during development does an embryo become a human being that has rights. There are many who want

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.

To others, there are a plethora of issues in IVF that constitute it as being unethical. Opponents consider it unethical to “play God” and create life in an unnatural manner. They believe couples should conceive on their own without the help of a medical procedure involving embryos. This is due to their opposition to the destruction of embryos during or after the procedure. For example, embryos are frozen in large groups and are disposed of if not used or remain frozen for numerous years (Bliss, 2012). Others believe that people should simply adopt a child instead of going through the expensive and risky procedure of IVF. However, these arguments are only the tip of the iceberg of IVF being that there are several topics to be discussed. One of the most interesting topics within IVF is that of “designer babies”. Although predominantly permissible by law, the ethics of “designer babies” encompasses whether or not it is moral to use PGD for preventive medical measures, sex pre-selection, and the determination of a child’s various traits. As stated above, the ethicality of the procedures lie within the intention of pursuing

Preimplantation Genetic diagnosis is a test scientists use to screen an embryo visibility of any genetic diseases such as Cystic Fibrosis or Huntington's Disease. They check to see if there are visibility of any genetic diseases that a baby could be born with. I fully support this procedure due to the psychological toll, and expenses on this test are equivalent to or less than having a child with a life long disease, however, I disagree with artificially designing your baby. If a couple decides to not go with PGD and chose amniocentesis, they would have to wait 4 months to test their baby of any diseases. If the baby is diagnosed with a genetic disorder the parents would ultimately have to choose to keep the baby or abort the fetus. It’s emotionally

Pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) is a technique used to screen and diagnose embryos for genetic and chromosomal diseases. This treatment is often used for couples that carry genetic disorders or diseases and want to prevent their offspring from inheriting these. PGD is available for couples who may have had multiple miscarriages or infertility problems, or who have had previous affected children (Scriven, 2011). In the last decade non-medical related uses for this technology such as sex selection, has become an increasingly prevalent reality. The use of PGD for this purpose is a controversial issue that raises ethical, social and financial issues around the world.

The negative ethical impacts upon using this technology include the traumatizing or killing of an embryo during the freezing process, the effects due to human error and designer children. Despite the advancement of IVF and genetic technologies, the major downside is the care and treatment of the embryos. Even though most embryos survive all steps during the technology, 20-30% of the cryopreserved embryo’s fail to survive the thawing process, not to mention those damaged during the technologies process as well (Cryopreservation in human assisted reproduction is now routine for embryos but remains a research procedure for oocytes, 2015). This is unethical as they are a life form that hasn’t had the opportunity to experience life on earth and

Siegel questions statements made in this article, and is able to back them up with other gathered information. A hot topic in the article that is put to question is how some individuals are against the use of human embryos, because they believe it is killing an innocent human being.