Right to Know the Sperm Donor

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

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.

Kass, a case dealing with one party objecting the use of frozen genetic material to achieve pregnancy of another party, as an introduction for his article. Providing the facts of this controversial issue works very well in setting up the content of his article for the interest of his reader. Other cases he repeatedly refers to are the Hecht v. Superior Court, Davis v. Davis, and the Buzzanca surrogacy case. By using these court cases as examples, McKee is able to provide unbiased facts as support in the content of his article.

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

In the ethical dilemma of Karen Capato and her posthumous conception twins born 18 months after her husband’s death, lives changing ethical questions are considered in the decision to award social

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.

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

Children have a right to know who gave them life because of medical reasons. Some people might argue that genetic medical problems do not give children the right to know the donor parent because they can just use their DNA or blood sample to know medical problems they might have. However, what they do not realize is that it can be difficult for donor children to find that information. It is important for them to also realize that new medical problems could have sprung up since the

An issue that has caused great legal debate is the freezing of eggs and embryos. Freezing allows savings eggs or embryos for later implantation; not all are used. However, frozen embryos and eggs generally have a lower success rate. The question arises of what happens to them if the couple decides to divorce, or one or both of them dies? These situations have been decided through court determinations. In 1987, the status of frozen embryos was brought before the Victorian courts with the case of Mr and Mrs Rios, who had died in a plane crash. The embryos from Mr and Mrs Rios had been frozen in 1981. There were many ethical and moral concerns regarding this case. Should the embryos remain frozen indefinitely, be donated, or kept for research? The Infertility (Medical Procedures) Act

Reproductive technology has come a long way in the last twenty years and continues to make expansive advances. The question "where do babies come from" is becoming harder and harder to answer. The response used to sound something like "when a man and a woman love each other very much…" now with in vitro fertilization, fertility drugs, and sperm/egg donors as well as future advances the answer will take on a new twist "…they go to see a doctor and look through a catalog to pick what kind of baby they want."

Many opponents of sperm donation also believe that donation should not be allowed to remain anonymous, citing that this causes negative effects on the resulting children in the long run (Christian Science Monitor); however I believe this should be entirely the donor’s choice. Many countries have already passed laws no longer allowing anonymous donation. According to the article “In Britain, a decline in sperm donors; Anonymous no longer, most say they want to help infertile couples, not just earn extra cash" by the Christian Science Monitor, this ban on anonymous sperm donation has vastly affected the number of donors, resulting in a shortage of sperm available for use. This action does not seem to be the most logical answer as it leaves many people wanting children without means by which they can do so. The effects on the donor conceived children could just as easily be reduced by other methods such as the creation of a national registry that includes more accessible data about their donor, such as medical issues the donor themselves may have and a more detailed family history of medical predispositions; something that many children including Kathleen LaBounty, a young woman with a

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.

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.

Some view altruistic surrogacy as a form of exploiting the surrogate. There is no monetary compensation to woman placing her health and well-being on the line for another’s benefit. However, it can also be held that the woman knowingly entered into the agreement with full disclosure of the risks and benefits to her health and body. Again, autonomy and justice are extremely prevalent ethical principles to explore when discussing the topic of surrogacy. Same-sex marriage has become a hot topic in the United States in the last few years. The idea of raising a family by homosexual

Same-sex parenting and in vitro fertilization (IVF) donor privacy are the two main ethical dilemmas offered by the 2010 movie “The Kids Are All Right”. Several other problems crop up throughout the movie, which are also ethical decisions. With personal IVF experience, this movie seemed to be a logical choice, however, the only real similarity I found, is the daily struggles raising teenagers. The real theme of the movie should be the unintended consequences life produces when decision-making is poor or non-existent. A movie summary, followed by a few of the literary reviews, sets the stage for the director’s intentions and a summary of the stereotypes portrayed. Ethical leadership does find its way into the movie, but not from the expected source. Finally, a discussion about the movie’s effect on culture and my outlook on several of the ethical issues come to the same conclusion, the kids are all right.