The End

Installment 2 - Selwa Kanakrieh

Jehovah’s Witnesses Refusal to Accept Blood Transfusions.

The firm belief by the Jehovah's witnesses to entirely refuse to acknowledge blood transfusion; despite the seriousness of a particular situation including an emergency case, is because they are taught according to their teachings that transfusion of blood is sacred standpoint that is not up to negotiation and that if anyone has value and esteem that their life is a God-given gift they shall in no way accept blood transfusion in order to maintain their lives (Hoffman, 2016).

The Jehovah's witnesses stand with their Bible teachings which claim that blood incorporation, blood transfusions as well as blood donations and storing of their blood for transfusion at a later date, may it arise, is forbidden. This entire belief of the Jehovah’s witnesses is derived from a scripture that is different from other Christian values; thus reason as to why Jehovah's Witnesses are well known across the globe.

Jehovah’s witnesses further explain that the reason as to why they would instead not accept blood transfusions is because it is their way of showing great respect to God. This is elaborated by the fact that they are allowed to eat meat regardless of the fact that it may contain some blood. The Jehovah's witnesses, therefore, claim that the problem is not with the blood itself. Nonetheless, it is the respect and value they give to God that brought up there making this decision.  

 Organ Transplant and Judaism

At one moment opposed, Jewish practice and law on organ donation have altered dramatically, which some perceive as the beauty of Judaism as a living and evolving religion. Because organ transplantation is a very successful approach to save a life, the donation of organs has been perceived a compulsory act, a mitzvah chiyuvit, by every significant branch of Judaism. 

All the same, it is worth mentioning that some Orthodox leaders differ on the manner in which time of the death of a donor, and prefer a point later than the death of the brain. Death of the brain which results in some organs being deemed unusable but even in such an instance the kidneys, barring the disease of the kidney, remain transplantable after the demise of the donor. For that reason, not to bequeath at least a number of an individual's organs has become a sin of the mitzvah of pikuakh nefesh, i.e. saving a life.

Pikuakh nefesh which is ‘saving a life' in the English language, is a fundamental value of the Jews, and at any given time 40,000 individuals appear on the waiting list of The United network for the sharing of organs. As such, there is a question of whether to conduct a body organ while alive is a mitzvah (Messina, 2015). The answer is that as long as it beneficial and will not bring risk to an individual’s donor’s life, the removal of organs surgically and their subsequent donations such as kidneys or lungs through an alive donor is a mitzvah kiyumit, a mitzvah that should be deemed as praise-worthy but never in any way an obligatory mitzvah, because with all surgery there exists some great fear and some risk. 

In summary three verses from the Old Testament Torah (the first five books of the Bible) frame the idea of organ donation: “Thou shalt not stand by the blood of your neighbor” [Leviticus 19:16], ‘Thou shalt surely heal” [Exodus 21: 19] and “You shall restore” (an object that is lost, which is inclusive of someone’s health )[Exodus 23: 4]. The part of Judaism that refuses organ donation is against a live person donating an organ such as a kidney to another while they are both alive and is based on Leviticus 19:16. As such, there is no problem if the donor is dead.

Human Experimentation 2nd installment- Zach Nix

In my first installment , I posed several questions about human experimentation. However, I tried to stay fair to both sides of the argument. In installment 2 I will be stating my opinions and reasoning.

            Concerning the use of undeniably unethical research results I believe that it should be treated in a case by case manner. Much like any scientific paper the research should be reviewed for inaccuracies or bias. Simply because an individual is amoral does not mean that the results they produce are skewed, though it does warrant scrutiny. If data obtained by slaughter can save lives then it does indeed produce a “unique opportunity” that otherwise would never have occurred. As was discussed in class the use of such data can even be seen as a way to honor the dead. If the lives taken provided data that saved lives then perhaps their deaths meant more than just a war crime.

            Concerning informed consent, I agree for the most part with common practices. Although the way in which researchers attempt to convey information to subjects needs to increase to ensure that the subjects understand the study and risks more fully. Of more interest is the ethics of terminal subjects in research. If a person is desperate due to a terminal diagnosis then it is more likely they may participate in a type of test that may be more likely to end in death. Most trails on gene therapy have been targeted to genes that cause dearth early in life and many of the tests have cause the premature death of the subject. These tests understandably make one uneasy and need to be carefully monitored, but if the patient understands that they are risking a slightly longer life in return for furthering the research that may one day prevent their situation in the first place, then it is easy to see the appeal. Tests outside of the body can only tell us so much when concerning a system as complex as the human body, therefore, research such as cancer studies need willing cancer patients or the disease will never be cured. Tests such as these are the reason that any progress in medicine has been made. Small pocks or polio would never have been cured if it was not for the pioneers who risked their lives in a study or procedure that could have ended their lives.

            A more nuanced issue concerning consent is the ability of the cognitively impaired to give consent in the first place. In the case of children, it is obvious that they do not fully understand the concept of death, not to mention the difficulty explaining a procedure or test. While I generally advocate against the ability of parents to declare the desires, such as religion, of their child, children represent a huge demographic with unique traits that require their participation in tests that outweighs the issues inherent in allowing a parent to make life and death choices for a child. In the case of mentally impaired children and adults the ability to understand their own situation may not be easily determined. In these cases the specific impairment often has legal structures already in place for decision making of these individual that should be used. But if not I believe that the ethical action is to only allow for these individuals to be research subjects if, despite impairment, they are consenting when the nature of the research is explained to the best of the researchers ability and that the research requires the specific participation of the impaired demographic for proper results.

I commented on Jonathan and Joseph's 2nd installments.     

Medical Conscience (Installment 1) Katelyne Tatum

Medical Conscience

Medical conscience advocates that medical professionals can refuse to perform a service for a patient when it goes against their moral belief unless the patient’s life is at stake. Since, the Roe v. Wade verdict many conscience laws have been enacted. Starting with providing abortion-related exemptions to healthcare professionals if abortion or sterilization services go against their religious or moral beliefs. Some states have also enacted “right of refusal” laws for pharmacists allowing them to refuse to fill a prescription that goes against their religious or moral beliefs, such as, birth control or plan B. Many of the conscience laws deal with abortion, sterilization, and stem cell treatments, but with the ever-changing healthcare system and advancements in medicine these laws will continue to expand.

While a medical professional can refuse to participate in a procedure that goes against their religious or moral beliefs that professional still has a duty to ensure the care of the patient. Therefore, if a medical professional refuses to provide a service then they are obligated to allow that patient to seek medical care elsewhere without interference; refusing to give a referral, stepping between the patient and another doctor, or making a patient feel uncomfortable or ashamed goes against the patient’s right to care.

While healthcare workers should have the right to be exempted from services or procedures they do not believe in the right of the patient to have access to care also needs to be taken into consideration. Some laws, such as, “right of refusal” for pharmacist conflict with other laws; when a pharmacist refuses to fill birth control or emergency contraception it interferes with a person’s right to privacy because she is denied the right to decide to use contraception. It also can be seen as unequal treatment of men and women. Another consideration to be taken is access to care; for low-income or rural areas if a professional refuses to provide a service, let’s say an abortion, then that patient may have no other way to receive care in the area. Though a procedure may go against a healthcare workers morality, can that same person also say it is moral to leave a patient with no access to care?

               Medical conscience is good for healthcare professionals because it allows them to keep their morality while providing care to patients. But we also have to consider that there may be instances where these laws hinder a patient’s right to care. And those healthcare professionals may have to put aside their reservations for a procedure if there is no other way for a patient to receive care they need.

Surrogacy (Installment 2)

Surrogacy (Installment 2)

           

           As mentioned in the previous post, there are two main problems associated with surrogacy: the legality of whose child it is and commercial surrogacy. Today, commercial surrogacy will be discussed.

According to WebMD, pregnancy is an emotional rollercoaster. Many women have mood swings during their pregnancy and can experience ups and downs. Sometimes, the emotions are extended beyond pregnancy as a form of postpartum depression. Deborah Issokson, a licensed psychologist, stated, ”Motherhood is such a permanent transformation”. With that said, a surrogate mother is still a mother; she will have her emotions rampant during her nine months of having a human growing in her womb. The child that she is carrying in her womb has no relation to her in most cases. The emotional toll of pregnancy can be devastating to many mother.

A surrogate is someone will to carry a child for another, that being said, should do it out of the goodness of their hearts, a truly altruistic endeavor. The involvement of a payment for this  life-changing event, would degrade the significances of child birth to both parties. The surrogate will merely be doing a “service” for the couple. The couple would use her as a means to obtain a child. There is not an amount of money that can constitute the price of a human’s life. That being said there is no price worth the risks associated with pregnancy, the potential of complications and/or death are high, roughly 50,000 women die from complications associated with pregnancy in the United States every year. The surrogate mothers are usually socioeconomically disadvantaged, and are performing the surrogacy for monetary reward upon delivery of the child. They are usually taken advantage of by the system. The majority of the cost associated with have surrogate mother is taken by the IVF clinics that impregnate them.

           The legality of whose child it is and the downsides of commercial surrogacy is a very real thing. People are taken advantage across both parties. The complications associated with surrogacy shows how precious life is. It also show how emotional impactful give birth is. Becoming a surrogate mother is truly a rewarding feat, and should be regarded as upmost selfless acts, one that should be done for the happiness of others and not for compensation.

Sources used:

https://www.webmd.com/baby/features/pregnancy-emotional-roller-coaster#1

https://theconversation.com/not-for-profit-the-case-against-commercial-surrogacy-18512

                                                      

https://www.womenshealthmag.com/life/a19972147/high-risk-pregnancy/

*****************************************
Posted on Zach's and Cameron's

Installment numner 2

Solitary Confinement

In my previous post I discussed the physiological, and psychological effects of solitary confinement. In class we also discussed what a doctor, with the circumstances handed to them, would for those these patients in solitary confinement. The answers that I received were excepted, but I don't think that our opinions were from a "Doctor" stand point. What I mean by this is that I don't think that we thought, with the mindset that we took oath and saving lives is a duty that we must take part in. The more research that I have done on this topic showed me that I was no longer allowed to think with my personal feelings. As a doctor I have to think with my brain and not my emotions, I have to want the best for my patient regardless of what crime he or she has committed. I have to understand that as a doctor no matter what my everyday goal is to do what is best for my patient. With that in my mind I can't help but to think about the many people that are in solitary confinement and the amount of damage that they are going through while being in solitary confinement.

If the world was perfect and had the tools to employ more doctors. In my mind  the motto would be "rehabilitation before incarceration". What that mean is that Judges would look at the cases that are presented and based on what the charge was and the history of crime that person committed. For example, if the judge gets a case and has seen that the person has been committed of prostitution, drugs, and things of that nature. Once the case was viewed, the judge instead of committing this person of a crime he or she would make it a mandatory for this person to attend rehab, if this person doesn't then they should be sentenced to jail or prison time. In prison this person committed of the crime should still get the services of rehabilitation so that this person will be a better person when released back into society.

Now I know other things factor into play such as tax dollars that the Americans will spend, having to fix the judicial system as a whole (basically rebuild it so that people of all colors are heard). BUT if these things did spontaneously occur, I think that the "rehabilitation before incarceration"  would be an outstanding thing to implement. 

                                       

I know you guys are saying "what about the psychopaths, murders, child molesters, and rapist?!" " I  don't think they can be cured". I don't think they can either honestly. I still don't think that it's ethically right that we should put them in a cages, and allow them to get worse ( I'm thinking with the mindset of a doctor here). Here again I feel as a doctor we took an oath that basically says" the patients health is the primary focus", with the knowledge that I have on solitary confinement it is my goal to fix this situation as a Doctor. Below I  have a provided a link that kind of the same perspective of me.

                                             http://jaapl.org/content/38/1/104

                             

Hostile Architecture (Part 2)

As much as I would like to make my second post about things that are being done to critique hostile architecture, there just isn’t much that can be done. There have been efforts. Artists put spiked benches in parks that you must pay to sit on, filmmakers make videos to increase our empathy, there are public campaigns and organizations set up to help these people. Some thoughtful citizens even have set up pillows on benches, or sawed off the arm rests in the middle of a bench.

The group Unpleasant Design had an interview with the design team of Factory Furniture, which often designs public spaces based on what their commissioner asks for. When asked about how they thought society should think of homeless people, Factory Furniture responded with “Homelessness should never be tolerated in any society and if we start designing in to accommodate homeless then we have totally failed as a society.” I find this to be very true (other than the “totally failed” part, that seems a little extreme). Even though design is an incredible tool, it cannot change some of the larger problems that create the environment design is being used to shape. For homelessness, I have no solutions, but many ideas on small ways to aid the problem here and there, and maybe that’s all we need instead of a massive societal overhaul.

What I think is the important takeaway from this is that we become aware of the decisions that design is making for us, and if we are ok with them. Many of these designs end up beneficial for some, yet harmful for others. Every object we see was made with the intent to manipulate behavior in some way, sometimes in incredibly minor ways. It is of the upmost importance that everyone is educated about how our world is made as society get more and more complex, and as businesses and cities move to our smartphones next in ways that are not even tangible.

Here is the interview I used as a source in the post:
http://unpleasant.pravi.me/interview-with-factory-furniture-design-team/#more-512

Jonathan Cannon Installment 2

           In my previous post, I stated that I am in favor of organ transplant research and that I personally believe that studies that are done in organ transplant research should not be considered human subject research. In response to the presentation, other students were supportive of transplant research with some constraints. Concern was directed to the efficacy of the studies being done and experimentation should only be performed when there is a reasonably high probability of success. This was mostly due to the fact that there is such a high demand for organs and it would be too much of a risk if there was a chance for adverse effects that could result in damage to the organ making it unsuitable for a transplant.
            In the article posted be Zach Nix for his first installment on human exportation the author states, “Even in cases of studying particular conditions, such as childhood diseases, research is usually only seen as ethically justified if it imposes no real risk of harm or is likely to have some direct therapeutic benefit.” I thought this was particularly applicable to the subject of organ transplant research because organ donors could be considered unable to protect their interest. It is important to remember that these studies are not entirely left to the discretion of the physician leading the project. The research still has to be approved by an IRB before the study can even begin. If the IRB is able to determine that there is no real risk to either the donor or the recipient of the transplant than there should not be an ethical issue with the research.
            I believe that the social taboo of this kind of research lies in the public’s perception of medical experimentation. There is the perception that when studies are not considered human subject research, the members participating in the studies no longer have an advocate to protect their best interests, leaving them exposed to the ambition of the physician leading the research.
           The first step that could be taken to remedy this would be educating people on the process that and circumstances that are required to get approval by an IRB.
Another aspect that is not fully understood by many people is what exactly is at stake for the people that are on the organ transplant list. Even individual is fortunate enough to receive an organ transplant, they are not out of the woods yet. The success rate is only between 80-90% with some procedures having more risk associated with them than others. Research that is done for the preservation of the during the transplant process is one way that the success rate for transplant recipients can be increased.
            For the majority of us in this class, our intended profession will require us to educate people. Transparency goes a long way and all of us should be able to explain how research is done and the safeguards and oversight that individuals leading studies must adhere to. It is normal for people to oppose something they don’t understand and that is not necessarily a negative thing. If the general public had a better understanding of things like the function of an IRB this would go a long way in changing public opinion and provide more open-mindedness to organ transplant research.







I commented on both Joseph's and Clorissa's posts

Medical Complications by Ana (Installment #2)

Thank you all for your participation in my presentation. The video displayed, as Dr. Oliver stated, was clearly disturbing and I agree. Here are many of your thoughts that were captured that day:

Livid

Negligent

AAAAHHH!!

Rotten

Shock

Afraid

Pissed

Anxious

Livid

Terrified

Disbelief

Passive

Un-respondent

Lawsuit

Unaware

Evil

Distrust worthy

Panic

Enabling

Unsettling

Unconscionable

My initial thought when I viewed the show on TV was ignorance, followed by anger, followed by fear. The thought of ignorance did not rise from the ignorance of the surgeon or staff during the operation, but of the producers of the show. In my opinion, they are the group that is bringing anger, fear, and potentially paranoia to viewers. Sure! It makes for great TV and fills their pockets and bellies, but this is when my thoughts turn from ignorance to anger.

As I travel a pre-med path, I understand how extremely complex this journey is. The years dedicated to virtually one-self to gain the knowledge and skills to help as many as possible is blatantly disregarded in this display of entertainment. It frustrates me that our society now feels the need to “shop” for a doctor due to a few bad apples. As a mother, I am guilty of “shopping” for a pediatrician for my children. So, what does this say about me? Yet, I do understand both points of view, but it is still frustrating that that trust is the quintessential factor that is being lost. This loss of trust also reminds me of the recent shift we have all felt in how police officers are viewed.

Finally, I was filled with fear. A fear that made me realize I will need to work even harder as a doctor. Not only will we all be faced with a variety of complications, hopefully, nothing like the surgeons in the video, but instead with an invisible complication. A battle in trying to restore the trust and prestige of a doctor that TV shows like my example are stripping away layer by layer.

How can this be accomplished? Perhaps by doing one of the most difficult acts of valor and selfless -- publicly admitting to a medical complication, no matter the cost. Can you do it? If you were the surgeon in the video and had the ability to manipulate your team, would you? Or would you admit to the truth? A question I believe, we can answer easily in this safe forum, but would it be as easy in a real-life situation?

Ana



**********************************************
Posted comments on Kayla and Ilija's Installement #1's

Guided Evolution Second Installment

            

            To determine whether or not we should affect evolution’s path, we must understand the methods behind the ability to progress the evolution of our species. Genetic editing is one possible method of advancing human evolution. When we are finally able to conduct this method in our own species, we can ensure that our offspring do not have to endure problematic health issues. Yet, even with gene editing in the traditional sense, we would need a method to ensure that once we edit a trait that is initially unfavorable into one that is favorable this trait can be passed on to future generations. One popular gene editing tool is CRISPR-Cas9, which was invented by Jennifer Doudnaand Emmanuelle Charpentier to edit genomes. CRISPR is essentially a protein which allows scientists to cut DNA and replace it with new DNA. This method was tested recently with mosquitoes carrying the malaria parasite. While CRISPR-Cas9 not yet been implemented in humans, this method is currently being used in plants and animals. While the scientists could change the DNA of the mosquitoes they directly altered, they still had the issue of if this new gene would be favored in natural selection. However, scientist Kevin Esvelt managed to come up with the possibility of a gene drive which ensures that certain traits are passed to subsequent generations within the species. We could potentially use this to combat illnesses we carry genes for; not only for ourselves or our children and their children, but as a method of evolution for our entire species. We can also ensure that organisms who pass deadly diseases, such as malaria in mosquitoes, can have their genomes permanently edited in order to prevent those from ever being an issue in the future.

            However, the issue with this method is that some species can interbreed. For example, if we want to get rid of an invasive species, it is not always guaranteed that we will only affect that particular species; we could end up accidentally wiping out other species than the targeted species. This also presents a problem as to whether or not we should subject these invasive species to extinction. There are approximately 4,300 species that have been considered invasive. Should all of these species be subject to human-guided extinction? There also lies the issue of at what point would we stop gene editing and what would the regulations be? While the initial concern for gene editing is to prevent certain diseases from being passed on within our species. However, at what point do we suggest is too far? Before we begin the process of editing the human genome, we need to consider the regulations of this technology.

            Some scientists also speculate using such methods to evolve humanity not only for life on Earth but also life elsewhere. Assuming we as a species don’t allow our planet to deteriorate any further than it already has or that no natural disasters hit Earth which cause a mass extinction of humans, we have about 4 billion years left before our sun becomes a subgiant star, in which the star will expand, and Earth will be orbiting within the sun. While this seems to be a long time for our generation, this means that if we find no alternative as a species, that will be our extinction. Therefore, our only hope of surviving as a species, so long as we last that long to begin with, is by genetically modifying our species to handle conditions outside of Earth. While it may seem as though Earth is special and the only possible place where life can exist, this might not be the case. There are billions of stars and for each star, there exists the likelihood of there being a planet which orbits that star. While not all planets are guaranteed to be habitable, we may one day have access to the technology which allows us to one day adapt to more extreme environments. Perhaps we will find these answers through certain traits within bacteria who can be subjected to extremely high and low temperatures and elevated levels of radiation. Perhaps it is our duty as a species to speed up our evolution so that we can, eventually, see and be a part of other parts of our universe.

            One issue with this, however, is we have to ensure that humanity will survive long enough for these gene edits to be useful. Another issue is perhaps our knowledge of the conditions for other places in the universe. With the possibility of using gene editing technology for traveling to other places within our solar system and our galaxy, we need to consider the potential dangers for this technology. Perhaps we believe we understand at what point humans need to be modified in order to survive on other planets; but what if we were wrong? If we send humans out to other places believing they are prepared for these different kinds of environments and they are in fact not modified enough, we could be putting those people in danger.

My first installment can be found here.

Autism and Evolution (2nd Installment)

Edit: I commented on Tariq’s first installment and Iman’s second installment
         Installment 1

In my previous post, I gave a brief explanation of what I consider the Aspie Effect: Due to social comparison, we have created a standard that determines success and productivity by the output of the neurodiverse, in particular, those with Asperger’s syndrome. Now I’ll delve into what I think may be the consequences.

I think the use of stimulant medications is on the rise so that people may be able to reach the expectations they believe are normal (for the record, belief doesn’t always equate to truth). A lot of the conversation surrounding the abuse of drugs like Adderall and Ritalin focuses on teenagers or the over-prescription of them to children. I don’t think that there is enough focus on the abuse of these drugs in the professional setting. Roughly one-third of medical students in France abuse psychostimulants in order to meet the demands of their studies. It is not reasonable to assume that this misuse of prescription drugs stops once they graduate. An anonymous study of 1200 “German-speaking surgeons” found that 19.9% admitted to abusing prescription stimulant medication. That’s an incredibly small sample size, and it's logical to conclude that some probably lied out of fear of repercussion. Another independent study focusing on those just in the scientific community found that 62% of the respondents admitted to using Ritalin as a cognitive enhancer, which I think is probably a more realistic portrayal. It’s debatable whether or not the abuse of psychostimulants have the effect that those who are abusing them are looking for longterm,  but the ability to work longer and on task the individual finds uninteresting remains a reason for people to continue to turn to the drugs. Either way, a change needs to happen: We must accept the use of stimulant drugs like the use of coffee, or we must reevaluate our standards.

What would be the consequence of allowing legal, non-prescribed access to drugs like Adderall, truly respecting the autonomy of the individual? Stimulant drugs are Schedule II controlled substances due to their “risk of abuse and dependence.” Everyone doesn’t have the same vulnerability to addiction, which is supported by the diathesis-stress model. This is why some heavy drinkers become alcoholics and some do not. We can also argue against regulations on drugs based on the addiction argument by the legality and pervasive use of known addictive substances such as sugar that adhere to a substantial profit margin for the manufacturers. If the public is permitted to use addictive substances such as tobacco, sugar, and caffeine at their own discretion, shouldn’t we also have the choice to use pharmaceutical stimulants without a doctor’s recommendation? 

The legalization of stimulant drugs is highly unlikely given America’s sordid history with drugs, as evidenced by the term marijuana and this statement by John Ehrlichman when asked about former President Nixon’s war on drugs:

“We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course, we did."

This means that the only viable solution is to acknowledge where our standards come from, recognize they are unrealistic, and then change them. The existence of the circadian rhythm (and how much of our bodily functions are tied to it) is all we need to state with certainty that surgeons shouldn’t be required to work 36 hours shifts. The concept of the brilliant scientist frantically working in his lab for days on end seems to have become an image of what dedication to one’s work looks like, but that just isn’t reasonable. In fact, most people are more productive when they work shorter work weeks. It’s speculated that Henry Cavendish, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, Sir Isaac Newton, Nicola Tesla, and even Ludwig Wittgenstein were all on the autistic spectrum, meaning that these role models for all of humanity have a completely different biological/neurological makeup than the majority of the population. Instead of turning to drugs in order to emulate the obsessive behavior that these individuals were consumed by, we should spend more time accepting the variations in humanity, not trying to make everyone adapt to one unachievable and unhealthy standard. 

We still don’t fully understand the origin of autism spectrum disorders. Is it fair to theorize that it was potentially man-made? Some theories postulate that stress has a teratogenic effect, inducing genetic mutations that cause autism. Could the stress of trying to adhere to society’s expectation be the cause of autism? If we continue to exist in such a high-stress environment, will autism become the default of the future human? Are we forcing our species to evolve into an autistic society?

Eugenics Installment 2

For my first installment, I will be discussing the ethics of Eugenics. Eugenics is the science of improving the genetic composition of the human species by selective breeding.  According to this science, humanity could be improved by encouraging the “most fit” to reproduce more often and discouraging the least fit members of society from reproducing. Eugenics believes that selecting the mating partners and controlling the offspring improves the quality of human life.

Before my presentation I was supporting eugenics because I believed that if people of good quality were to mate with each other and people of bad quality were not to reproduce, the result would be more people of good quality. I thought that eugenics eliminates hereditary conditions that lead to deformities, mental and physical problems so it protects children against the inheritance of genetic disorders from their ancestry. Eugenics helps to control gender of offspring this allows parents to choose whether to have a male or female child and this allows them to have a family gender variety . I believed that eugenics creates better Individuals. Studies show that bad behaviors are due to faulty mental processes found in the brain. By altering the DNA makeup of babies, these mental processes can be controlled and help create individuals that are better versions of themselves. Eugenics can make us stronger, faster, healthier, more generous, hardworking, smarter. Moreover, I believed that eugenics can help us control population growth in humans.

After my presentation, I recognized that there are many serious moral and ethical problems with eugenics so I became to a great extent against it. Eugenics can be abused by scientists and politicians to manipulate others. People can use gender screening to stereotype. When new generations of humans are controlled genetically, it eliminates diversity and creates a unified type of race that is deemed perfect and superior. It also creates extreme discrimination against natural born babies because they will be considered inferior to those engineered ones with healthier bodies, smarter minds and better looks. Eugenics can be used against races and minority groups.

Even though, I am against many forms of eugenics, I still accept some forms of it such as the abortion of children who have genetic defects, such as Down syndrome. This could be for the benefit of both parents and children as it could save both of them lots of pain and suffering. Recent research suggests that abortion after prenatal diagnosis has reduced the population of individuals living with Down syndrome in the United States by approximately 30 percent.