Julian Savulescu Analysis

Chapter 2 delves into the lives of families with deaf children. It also goes into the genealogy of the Deaf community. It is a common factor that Deaf parents would prefer having a Deaf child, simply because having a hearing child would be more complicated for them. This does not mean that they would love their hearing children any less, The birth of a Deaf baby secures that the legacy of more Deaf children is possible. They are more than happy to celebrate when this kind of news is brought their way.

A deaf same sex couple went to a fertility clinic requesting spermatozoa that would help them have a deaf child. The clinic turned the couple away. The couple then approached a deaf acquaintance that had a history of deafness across multiple generations in his family. He agreed to donate spermatozoa, and the couple succeeded in having a deaf child. Not only did they succeed to have one child, they had another deaf child 5 years later. Both of the women were born deaf and wanted their children to share the same culture. They deliberately created deaf children and denied any hearing aids or anything helpful for the children(“Medical Ethics”). Even though the parents are deaf it doesn't mean they have to purposely make your children suffer. This

In the article “Victims from birth” Wendy McElroy, ifeminists.com, is about Sharon Duchesneau and her deaf son named Gauvin. Duchesneau, being a lesbian, selected a sperm donor(along with her partner Candace McCullough). Duchesneau and McCullough are also deaf. The donor they selected was based on his family history of deafness to insure their son Gauvin would also be deaf. Duchesneau goes on to say that Gauvin “is not profoundly deaf… but deaf enough” (McElroy 1). Gauvin was born with slight ability hear to. Gauvin would be able to hear well enough to perform normal functions with help from a hearing aid. However, Duchesneau and McCullough made the decision not to supply a hearing aide for their son. McElroy

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.

We are living in a new era where technology can help women have babies in unconventional ways. Having children is a personal choice. In some people’s view, government should not be regulating when people should and should not start having a family. The ethical issue is when the parents start applying for governmental benefits after the baby is conceived via In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) and born posthumously. When practicing IVF, are we violating God’s will? This paper is to discuss the views of the four candidates interviewed in relation to posthumous conception and delivery, their views on benefits/inheritance entitlement to these babies, and ethical principles and theories in

Over the course of time, selective infanticide has been heavily debated and surrounded by much controversy. Harriet Johnson’s piece “Unspeakable Conversations” navigates through the discourse between Johnson and selective infanticide advocate Peter Singer. Real world applications of the social and medical model of disability are embedded all throughout Johnson’s personal account of her encounters with Singer, causing audiences to think of these models in ways other than textbook applications. The work written by Johnson was published very recently, and it is evident that the controversy surrounding selective infanticide at the time of its publication is still present today. Johnson’s piece on selective infanticide offers a stance on the matter that should not be ignored because it is coming from someone disabled. Further analyzation of the text provided will support this claim.

When one chooses to write on a matter that seems to have been laid to rest decades ago their burden extensively lies not in trying to argue for their position, rather in showing the relevance of their position. This paper attempts to do both of these things when it comes to non-consensual sterilizations of women, specifically disabled women. A practice prominent in the 20th century, this paper examines coerced sterilizations from a feminist care ethics perspective and ultimately concludes that paternalistic arguments for this practice are in fact eugenic arguments, and thus renders coerced tubal litigations as unethical. Although neo-eugenics is starting to gain a number of followers for its genetic benefits, this is but a misconception of

After perusing the suggested articles, I decided on this article for my journal review because of the many facets of its colorful history in addition to its fascinating, and vastly growing, advancements in the area of eugenics. The imminent debates resulting from the conflicting moral and ethical implications arising from the inception, development and evolution of eugenics past and present are of interest.

Shortly after the turn-of-the-century, nearly two-thirds of states in America enacted laws that required sterilization of various criminals, mentally ill, epileptics, alcoholics, and sufferers of poverty (Largent, 2011). All of this effort was exerted to prevent undesirable children from being born. It was justified by the assumption that unfit people aren’t capable of adequate parenting; therefore their offspring would be a financial burden on society. Strong ideals and dogma were the weapons chosen by eugenicists to get involuntary sterilization legalized.

With the increasing popularity of eugenics in regards to prenatal screening, one can’t help but wonder, is this the dangerous idea of “playing God” that Shelley warned us about? One of the most common forms of eugenics nowadays is prenatal sex selection.

The constantly growing field of medical technology has raised many questions especially pertaining to ethics. The mapping of the human genome, cloning technologies, stem cell research, and of course reproductive technology has caused some very real dilemmas over the role of the human decision in the creation and orientation of new life. Humans are able to accomplish amazing things in science, but at what cost? The ubiquitous nature of reproductive technology has caused a new discipline of reproductive ethics. One such dilemma is that of selective abortion due to sex preference. In this paper I will discuss the ethics of gendercide and sonography’s affect on this practice

With increasing developments in biotechnology there are now more choices than ever for prospective parents when they decide to start a family. This induces demand for philosophers and ethicists to analyze the moral pertinence of such practices around the world for a wide range of situations. In this paper, I will present the arguments of Dena Davis against sex selective techniques and the subsequent arguments by Sophia Wong that link sex selection and disability de-selection. I will subsequently evaluate Wong’s extension and its viability within the argument established by Davis and defend my conclusion that it is indeed comparable and equivalent arguments due to the congruence of gender and disability expectations in the United States.

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

The science of eugenics was widely used during the 20th century in the United States to strategically eliminate the reproductive rights of women who were deemed inferior on the social ladder (“What is Eugenics?”). Some women of color, women with disabilities, and women from lower financial classes were sterilized for permanent birth control, and sometimes without their consent or knowledge (“What is Eugenics?”). The eugenics movement was aimed to promote selective human features in order to increase those with intelligence, good health, physical characteristics, and class. Currently, the recent controversy of human genetic engineering has scientist concerned that it will become the new eugenics. Sterilizing women as a precaution to prevent the overpopulation of unfavorable offspring would go against Jonathan Swift’s equal treatment of all humans, Benjamin Franklin’s hopes for men to understand the value of humanity, and be a direct violation to the natural born rights of all humans. Therefore, the controversial practice of genetic modification to restrict reproduction rights only to people of desirable traits is unethical because it promotes racial cleansing.

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.