Prenatal Genetic Testing Should Be Allowed

Though the use of pre-natal hereditary screening is as of now utilized as a part of high-hazard pregnancies for recognition of illness, for example, Down syndrome and Huntington 's chorea (Ridley 55, 98). As researchers decide the qualities for extra hereditary conditions, screening of incipient organisms will give more data to potential biological parents, former to their offspring has advanced. On the off chance that a screened embryo were found to convey qualities for a specific malady or inability, its guardians may specifically prematurely end it. This gives parents a choice of raising a child with a disability or back out if they don’t have the means to support the child financially, physically, emotionally or mentally. This is a good thing despite what others say because if a child is born with a disability in to family that doesn’t have the means to support it, it is unfair to all parties

   The Human Genome Project is the largest scientific endeavor undertaken since the Manhattan Project, and, as with the Manhattan Project, the completion of the Human Genome Project has brought to surface many moral and ethical issues concerning the use of the knowledge gained from the project. Although genetic tests for certain diseases have been available for 15 years (Ridley, 1999), the completion of the Human Genome Project will certainly lead to an exponential increase in the number of genetic tests available. Therefore, before genetic testing becomes a routine part of a visit to a doctor's office, the two main questions at the heart of the controversy surrounding genetic testing must be

When parents know the fetus is “special”, they may be chosen to terminate the pregnancy. Thus, in general prenatal screening helps to detect congenital disabilities but is also thought to be the 'remedy' selective abortion (Seller, 1976).

Many medical advances are being made today in the area of genetics. One of the most talked about is prenatal genetic testing. The purpose of prenatal genetic testing is to obtain information on a baby's health before they are born. This new technology will definitely improve the quality of human life. Diseases will be diminished and through new advances some diseases might even be eliminated. Children will be at less risk to have major health problems in their lives adding positively to their life experience. Prenatal genetic testing will also affects society as a whole.

What are the most serious genetic diseases and what are the pros and cons of genetic testing?

Darnovsky suggests that although many genetic scientists support germline engineering because it can potentially resist transfer of hereditary mutations, these scientists fail to mention that preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) does the same effect in allowing a technician to screen embryos for traces of diseases and simply deliver any non-infected embryos to the mother’s body. In conjunction, Darnovsky endorses the alternative of prenatal screening with the option of abortion to avoid the use of in vitro fertilization. Cohan, however, observes that it would dubious for the Court to restrict a woman’s reproductive rights to use germline technology while people are already using reproductive technologies such as in vitro fertilization, artificial insemination, and surrogacy. He asserts that the right to use these reproductive technologies is protected by law, and implies that it would be hypocritical for the government to restrict use of germline technology while these other reproductive technologies are still in effect.

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.

In chapter four of her book Genetic Dilemmas, Dena Davis asserts that it is unethical for parents to subject their children to genetic testing for the markers of adult-onset genetic diseases because it places an unfair constraint on a child’s right to an open future. It both removes the child’s ability to choose whether to be tested as an adult and has the potential to negatively alter the overall trajectory of their lives. While the current consensus amongst medical professionals is that such testing should be prohibited (Davis, _____), many concerned parents correctly point out that discouraging such testing creates a conflict of interests between the “beneficence model of patient care and the rights of parents to their own autonomy”

In Improvements in Prenatal Genetic Testing Raise Ethnic Issues, R. J. Crayton produced an article about prenatal testing and whether or not parents should be allowed to have these tests done. First the situation of a high risk baby who will have a disability or defect after birth, so the parents decide to abort the child is being viewed as an inequality to the disabled community. Secondly, certain adoptions are put on hold since the biological parents chose to not carry the unborn child through the entire pregnancy, however, the surrogate mother wants to carry the child through the entire term. Lastly, research shows that the results can be a false positive, so unintentionally the parents decide not to keep the unknown, but healthy baby.

In the following, I will attempt to map out the current debate as it applies to genetic screening and testing, with special attention paid to the criticism offered by disability studies theory and disability rights advocates. I will begin with a brief overview of the traditional arguments in favor of reproductive liberty and a more permissive stance toward the use of genetic technology. This will include a discussion of autonomy as the underlying ethical principle at work, and the related focus on informed consent as both a guiding axiom and common target of criticism. The principle of beneficence is a crucial underlying

With the increasing number of families considering adoption and a larger proportion of children originating from poor conditions combined with technological advancements, the demand to have more information about the adoptee has been increasing. Arguing as to what extent is morally justifiable, Kimberly J Leighton's article 'Accepting Adoption's uncertainty: The limited Ethics of Pre-Adoption Genetic testing’ concludes that pre-adoption genetic testing (PAGT) beyond current testing limits should not be permissible and available for adoptive parents.

Twila Brase, a public health nurse and president of the citizens’ council on Health Care who is aware of new born screening as the largest single application of genetic testing in medicine as a challenge that might result into an explosion of the return of Eugenics, issue of the privacy and sometimes involuntary genetic research. She addresses herself to physicians, medical researchers, and the interested patients in the article: “Newborn Genetics Screening Runs the Risk Violating Rights”, warning them that genetic testing might cause future disasters as the government with the help of researchers, they might eliminate, the people who do not meet their (eugenicists) point of view of being healthy. She critically discusses how the government,

The birth of a child is supposed to be a time of joy, the uncertainty of life leads to this one point in time. Will she or he be the next president, a star athlete, a genius or just fall into the crowd as another citizen. With recent advancements in science, this uncertainty has become a thing of the past. The human being is now seen as a commodity and no more is valued in the uncertainty of individuality. The parent can now choose how they want their child to come out or develop into. Sandel’s book The Case Against Perfection: Ethics in the Case of Modern Eugenics is a well researched look into examples of modern eugenics and the problems that arise from it. These topics range from the ethics of cloning, athletes using performance enhancing drugs, and other practical uses in everyday life. Sandel’s argument is that there is value in human nature (even with all its flaws), and genetic engineering will forever change human nature. Destroying the very essence of what it is to be human and scarring humanity. The main features of human nature that will be altered: are responsibility, humility and solidarity.

As quoted by Nelson Mandela, “to deny people their human rights is to challenge their very existence.” In the past century, humans have been experimenting and debating the use of eugenics, which is the science of improving the human race through controlled breeding in order to increase the occurrence of desirable, heritable characteristics (Mankiller). Although eugenics is supported by many, one could argue that eugenics is a violation of a human’s rights. In the United States Constitution, some of the human rights mentioned are the right to liberty and freedom, the right to live life free from discrimination, the right to control what happens to one’s body and to make medical decisions for oneself, the right to the pursuit of happiness, and the right to life. In countries across the world, there is little debate about these God-given rights. However, this paper will discuss how eugenics is a violation of not one, but every single one of these basic human rights. Eugenics is morally wrong because it promotes abortion for expecting mothers, it creates a stronger sense of racism within a community as well as on a global scale, and it solidifies the social hierarchy.

2. Is it right to use genetic screening as a tool to keep tabs on their prospective enrollees?