Should It Be Publicly Funded? Essay

A Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD) is a test that “allows future parents to detect genetic defects that cause inherited disease in human embryos before they are implanted.” One of the most ethical questions that one might ask before considering the PGD is whether the benefits of genetic knowledge outweigh harmful effects that occur to the embryo? Is it really worth manipulating embryos genes in order to achieve the desire of the parents? Often times we have to take into considerations the risk and benefits of each situation. I believe that the PGD test should be only be done to detect genetic defects, but it should not be used to manipulate genes in order to make what to them is a “perfect” child. As stated in our text, “ In the united Kingdom alteration of an embryos genes, even for gene therapy or cloning embryos is illegal.” By manipulating genes its like going against Gods wishes. In the eyes of God every person that comes into this world is equally seen as a human being because they are all created in “ the image of God.” In this case the parents should not be allowed to manipulate the genes of their unborn child just to accommodate to their

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.

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.

Obviously there are a few benefits for genetic testing of embryos. But do those benefits outweigh the realistic problems that are just around the corner such as sexism, killing embryos that may not even develop a genetic disorder or made-to-order children? What if by the time we have children you have the option to choose what gender they are, their

The U.S. citizenry has expressed divergent views in the past on how public schools should be funded. In most cases, states primarily raise funds to support public schools through property and/or sales taxation. The extent to which respective states rely on either of these forms of taxation differs from state to state, with some relying on one or both methods of taxation. Reliance on either sales or property taxes as a primary source of funding presents related challenges to state governments since both tax forms bear significant shortcomings. This paper specifically argues that states such as Georgia, which have property tax as the primary source of funding, should not shift to the sales tax option. However, in addition to the current system of property taxes, these states should consider a hybrid plan using both property and sales taxes for better education funding.

One advantage is the ability to reduce the risk for diseases. Through procedures like pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD), one can inspect embryos created by in vitro fertilization (IVF) for many genetic conditions (Macklin, 2014, para. 1). While this process can be extremely beneficial ensuring the health of future generations, it can be misused in many ways.

According to “Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis: Ethical or not?” Janet Malek, a bioethicist at the Brody School of Medicine at East Carolina University, states in quote “... people who carry a gene like GSS have a moral duty to use preimplantation diagnosis -- if they can afford it -- to spare the next generation.” end quote. Going by what she says and the high price of about $20,000, which means if you aren't extremely wealthy you won’t be able to afford this, so most of the population wouldn’t be able to afford this service. Which means it is only accessible to a select few, therefore making it less effective. Another and the final problem with this system is brought to light by David Wasserman, a ethicist at Yeshiva University and consultant, said in quote “there is no obligation to use it for diseases that do not start until adulthood. Eliminating embryos with such genes is essentially saying someone like Ms. Kalinsky should never have been born.” end quote. As true and controversial as Wasserman stated he speaks the truth. Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis should be reserved for either heavily crippling or life threatening diseases. Reasoning is if an adult contracts a disease such as GSS and then does have money to pay for a Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis procidure then should be allowed to get the operation, but for people who want to ensure the sex of their kid should find something else to spend their money

PGD is performed with IVF and followed by genetic screening for mutant gene. IVF stage, eggs are collected and fertilized by sperm in the laboratory to produce Zygotes. Then, these Zygotes carry on to growing in the laboratory for 3 days until reached eight cells stage. Biopsy of embryo is performed and extracted blastomere from each 6-8 cell stage embryo. Then, cell undergoes genetic screening for mutant gene. Un-carrier and unaffected embryos are transferred into mother’s uterus with confident no CF mutant gene for ensuring a quality of life for baby (Destouni, 2016).

Should gender selection be legal in Australia? PGD (Pre-implantation genetic diagnosis) is illegal in Australia unless it is used to screen out hereditary disorders or a medical reason, however it is possible. Australian families travel overseas to countries such as USA, Asia and Thailand to go through the expensive process of choosing the gender of their baby (Cornwill, 2015). However many people disagree with this process and believe that you should not be able to choose the gender of your baby.

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.

Many doctors, researchers and parents that have genetic disorders are for the use of PGD. Dr Mary Birdsall, of Fertility Associates, works with patients that have had multiple miscarriages, infertility issues, failed IVF, pre diagnosed genetic conditions and parents that cannot get pregnant. "Many people miscarry because they have implanted a chromosomally abnormal baby," Birdsall says. "The idea of going through an IVF cycle and choosing, as far as you can tell, only chromosomally normal embryos to go back into the uterus will increase the chances." Many doctors like Dr Birdsall are for the use of PGD, PGD provides parents the opportunities to increase the chances of getting pregnant by examining the embryos and implanting one that will be

October 2001 - Fertility experts announce they will begin to offer PGD for use in sex selection to clients

Sadly medical research has been politicized. Perhaps I have my rose colored glasses on when I muse about both major political parties. I wonder why they cannot look at the issue itself and debate the value of allowing destined for disposal left over embryos to go down the drain. It is okay that in vitro fertilization produces excess embryos but not okay to use only what is destined to be disposed of for research. My apologies if I sound like a broken record. It is just that what I wonder about in this matter has never really been answered for the PD community.

In other areas of the world, such as China, the use of IVF is allowed for specific groups of people. Overall, however, in vitro fertilization is a widely used practice that is growing in size. In my opinion, in vitro fertilization should continue to occur. There are many benefits from this practice that include making sure that quality of life is as high as possible for everyone. However, there definitely need to be some regulations set in place for in vitro fertilization specifically used to do pre-implantation genetic diagnosis. This set of regulations should aim to maximize the quality of life of as many people as it can, which follows the outcome-based ethical theory. Therefore, it is reasonable to only allow genetic tests to be done that have been specified by the parents as potential genetic disorders to be passed on. There definitely need to be regulations for when certain markers are discovered, such as those for intelligence or homosexuality, for example. Potential parents should not be allowed to specifically choose for their offspring to have genes that can be environmentally influenced or that will not affect the child’s upbringing. Obviously, there are still some unanswered questions, such as what to do if a gene marker for Alzheimer’s or

Although PGD is a relatively new procedure, there are several ethical questions surrounding its use. One question is, "Should parents be allowed to choose characteristics for their children that are not related to disorders such as their baby’s eye color, personality, or even the sex of their baby?" [Wekesser,1996]. Until the genes responsible for inherited traits such as the previously mentioned are mapped, this is not an issue. If scientists do not know where the gene is located, they are unable to create a test determining the presence of the gene. However, because we do know how the sex of a child is determined, a specific gender can be screened for. Many believe that this should