Essay about Sperm Donation: A Viable Option

Anything outside of our permission or control is considered an assault. Despite our beliefs and what should be, this was quite contrary with Henrietta Lacks. An article in The Scientist noted “The global rise in biobanks – currently a $1 billion industry that is expected to grow to $2.25 billion by 2015 – also introduces other ethical concerns, including patenting of biological materials, whether donors control what happens to their tissue, whether donors should be compensated, and the privacy issues dramatically highlighted by the online publication of the HeLa genome.” Enhancing public awareness is paramount around this topic along with engaging in the ethical complexities effectively, which in the end could build awareness, boost trust, and improve an understanding around the purpose of biobanks and how they operate. Henrietta Lacks case presented a beneficial context for analyzing the legal and ethical issues that may be raised when human tissues are being used in medical research.

As we stand in the world today, we as humans have never been more technologically advanced or scientifically intelligent. We have the ability to explore outer space and the depths of the oceans. We are even in the process of developing organs using 3D printing technology. But there is a limit to the extent of advancements that humankind can reach before some begin to pose dangers to humanity or become unethical. Currently, technology is being developed to expand the procedure of in vitro fertilization to genetically modify embryos. The products of this engineering are commonly known as “designer babies”. This technology, when fully developed, would grant parents the opportunity to select against possibly life threatening or altering conditions such as cystic fibrosis, schizophrenia and Alzheimer’s. Using this technology, parents would also be able to make extensive selections regarding their baby’s gender, physical characteristics, and possibly even personality traits and talents. While it is positive advancement to be able to select against life-threatening diseases, the creation of an a-la-carte baby is unethical and crosses the line between positive sociological developments and immoral manipulations of nature for many reasons.

Gregory Stock, in his article Choosing Our Genes, asserts that at this point not ethics are important, but rather the future of genetic technology. Stock supports his conclusion by providing powerful examples of how genetic modifications can benefit our population anywhere from correcting genes at the time of conception to extending lifespan. He wants to inform his audience about all of the benefits of genetic technology in order to prove that there are way more advantages in this technology that are highly desirable by people of different ages. He reaches his readers by writing a very detailed yet coherent article that brings awareness to various groups of people from parents to be to older populations.

Although the intentions of genetically modifying DNA in human embryos is aimed to rid society of genetic defects, it is still essential that this scientific discovery remains ethical. In an article on NPR.org, Rob Stein describes an experiment that scientists have been conducting in which they modify human DNA in order to eliminate life threatening genetic diseases that could be passed on for generations (Stein). In Portland, at Oregon Health & Science University, Paula Amato, an associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology, explains “that their work is aimed at preventing terrible diseases, not creating genetically enhanced people...much more research is needed to confirm the technique is safe and effective before anyone tries to make a baby this way”(Stein). Because scientists like Amato realize their research is controversial, they are taking every precaution to assure what they are doing is morally correct, they are not intending to corrupt society. Although their intentions are good, it is their job to make sure their research is being used in an ethical way. If not, millions of people, who are already obsessed with the idea of perfection, will be able to do something about

Picture a young couple in a waiting room looking through a catalogue together. This catalogue is a little different from what you might expect. In this catalogue, specific traits for babies are being sold to couples to help them create the "perfect baby." This may seem like a bizarre scenario, but it may not be too far off in the future. Designing babies using genetic enhancement is an issue that is gaining more and more attention in the news. This controversial issue, once thought to be only possible in the realm of science-fiction, is causing people to discuss the moral issues surrounding genetic enhancement and germ line engineering. Though genetic research can prove beneficial to learning how to prevent hereditary

The 21st century however forecasts an astonishing increase in innovation in another direction. While previously overshadowed by its larger cousins, physics and chemistry, it seems likely that the biological sciences will steal the limelight in the future. Mapping the genome, reversing the aging process, and finding a cure for terminal illnesses, all represent primary objectives for science. Unfortunately, the ethical questions posed by innovations in biomedicine are far greater than those posed by advances in the physical sciences. Reproductive cloning is one of these innovations, and one that arguably poses the greatest threat to the world as we know it. The universal truth, blindly accepted by man for millennia, held that a human could only be born through the sexual union of a male and a female, to be exact, of an egg and a sperm. By cloning, however, a human life can be created in the laboratory. This is done by taking human DNA and inserting it into an egg cell, sans genetic material. The resultant cell is identical to the original, and can then be inserted into a uterus, either a human or an animal one, and be grown to term, to produce a baby, while circumventing nature’s means of reproduction.

Embryonic harvesting and freezing is considered an ethical dilemma and morally unacceptable. Karen Capato reserved sperm for in-vitro fertilization posthumous and reared twins as a result. In this instance, technology was used after the death of a spouse to create life posthumous and the use of such is considered an act of God. “The Bible mentions in its parables that we should not to disrupt a life” (E. Horning, personal communication, January 31, 2013). Manipulating genetics

The last 150 years have seen the origin of—and rapid expansion in—human knowledge involving the nature and mechanisms of trait and disease inheritance in human beings. Advances in genetic research hold great promise for the future development of effective prevention and treatment strategies for a great many, often devastating, heritable conditions. However, these advances also raise a series of policy, legal and fundamentally ethical questions concerning what we should and should not do with the knowledge and technology we acquire. These questions are numerous and both imminently practical and speculative, ranging from the exhausted, yet still largely unresolved, question of the moral status of the human embryo to fears about slippery slopes into a Brave New World or Gattaca-style dystopic future characterized by designer children and a genetic underclass.

The AHA conference in this year features at least 4 sessions directly related to my current field---the social studies of genetics, especially the modern DNA technology. My dissertation investigates how the progress of forensic technology empowers both the military and soldiers’ families in searching for the American soldiers missing in previous conflicts. Learning other social impacts of medical or forensic technology, like those on racial equality and law enforcement, will significantly broaden my horizon in how the broader American society responded to the introduction of new biological technologies and how ordinary citizens monitored their application. In the AHA conference this year, sessions 79, 198, 248, and 295 are focusing on political and bioethics issues brought with new genetic or medical technology. Other sessions related to the conception of death in the Western culture and American veteran affairs are also my priority during this conference.

Day by day, an accretion of advancements and improvements are formed across the world. Prominent developments occur rapidly, like the use and creation of technology. Technology has and continues to create an immense effect on how we live our daily lives. Its use is ranged from how information is found, travel, communication, and more. However, the advancements of technology seems to interfere with the circle of natural life, life that is brought into our world. It has changed the lives of unborn children, whom are in the form of an embryo. Altered by a new technique and process of genetic modification, that is commonly referred to as “Designer Babies”. This genetic modification, genetically modifies the DNA of an embryo to achieve desirable traits amongst them. It changes an unborn babies development and future life. While it may seem that designer babies can be a positive life change, there are negative effects that outweigh, due to the fact that it goes against human nature; genetic probability, expectations, diversity, and religious prospects.

For decades, researchers’ use of stem cells has caused a controversy and the consideration of the ethics of research involving the development, usage, and destruction of human embryos. Most commonly, this controversy focuses on embryonic stem cells. Not all stem cell research involves the creation, usage and destruction of human embryos. For example, adult stem cells, amniotic stem cells and induced pluripotent stem cells do not involve creating, using or destroying human embryos and thus are minimally, if at all, controversial. Many less controversial sources of acquiring stem cells include using cells from the umbilical cord, breast milk, and bone marrow. (Brunt, 2012) In 1998, scientists discovered how to extract stem cells from human embryos. This discovery led to moral ethics questions concerning research involving embryo cells, such as what restrictions should be made on studies using these types of cells? At what point does one consider life to begin? Is it just to destroy an embryo cell if it has the potential to cure countless numbers of patients? Political leaders are debating how to regulate and fund research studies that involve the techniques used to remove the embryo cells. No clear consensus has emerged. Other recent discoveries may extinguish the need for embryonic stem cells. With this in mind, we will discover both sides of the issue from a pros and cons point of view. Stem cell research has expanded at an exponential rate, but its therapeutic

Anonymous sperm and egg donation is a serious topic. Some people think they should remain anonymous and some do not. A few reasons for becoming known donors are legal rights, medical reasons, and psychological problems. The parents and donor kids should know where the sperm or egg came from because it might affect their futures. Medical risks are a huge deal that everyone needs to be aware of, but especially those who are not sure where they came from. Donor children who do not know who their donor is or are looking for their biological parent, may grow up to have problems psychologically. Children have the right to know their biological background.

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.

Gender stereotypes have existed since the beginning of modern man. We've all heard them before; male dominance and female weakness, a controlled male and a flustered female, aggression and passion, and many others that all basically boil down to the same thing. Emily Martin, in her essay entitled The Egg and the Sperm, takes this problem of gender stereotype to a new and much more serious level. As an anthropologist, Martin is concerned with the socio-cultural impacts on many different aspects of everyday life, including biology. In doing her research for this article, Martin was trying to uncover suspicions she had about socio-cultural gender stereotypes, and the affects they had on the diction used to describe egg and sperm

New technological advances will lead to more exorbitant fees, which will in turn cause a reduction in the amount and types of people that can afford these new procedures. Will future generations of natural births then be lorded over by a genetically enhanced master class? Will these future "perfect people" segregate themselves from the flawed human class of today? Will they be at an advantage in the society? Another moral and social problem that arises from this genetic donation is the loss of the ability to trace genetic lines. If a man gives a sperm sample about three times a week, and each donation is split up into three samples, he has the potential to father a dozen children in one week alone. If this matter is shipped all over the country between different sperm banks how can we keep up who is from what genetic descent? This can quite possibly lead to inner familial (in the genetic sense) marriages, causing many genetic defects in future generations. These new technological advances can actually hinder the human race.