I have no children (half the time I still consider myself one), but from many parents I'm told that it is one of the most rewarding and challenging endeavors that life has to offer. Some of these challenges include issues related to technology: how to introduce children into a world where all information is readily available, and a hefty portion of this information would be very harmful to the child? Another challenge is that of religion: as a parent, do you force your child into a religion? For a true believer, the consequence of straying from their religion is the fate of their child's soul. These questions, and others alike, have plagued parents for years now. However, today I want to explore the parent's perspective on an emerging issue: how far is too far in regards to utilizing pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD).
PGD in itself is not unethical; It is merely genetic testing from which information can be gleaned. Common practices using PGD are for its diagnostic prowess in determining if the developing embryo is going to inherit harmful diseases from the parents, selection of gender based on the info provided by PGD, or detect genetic disorders. For the concerned parent-to-be, these options might be tempting or alarming. I think that lack of a true precedent is at the heart of a parent's potentially conflicting feelings toward these applications of PGD. For instance, taking your child to the doctor when they become ill is a popular and obvious choice. Eliminating the disease that is threatening or causing undue discomfort to my child is the right thing to do (from many parents' perspectives). "It's what my parents did to/for me, and I turned out ok" is the common theme. So when a fertility doctor tells you that your child will be heavily at risk for a disease based on their DNA, but it can be corrected, the argument for genetic treatment based on PGD is hard to resist. However, this precedent gets shakier the deeper you read into it. For instance, it is no great secret that intelligence is one of (if not the) most desirable traits. In the United States, we put our children through public school to teach them "essential" skills, and to sharpen their minds. If intelligence is something valuable and possible for the parent to pass on to their child, then the parent should provide that advantage to their child. The aforementioned precedent is the stem of the problem; it can be used to justify anything. The root of the parents' dilemma, however, is that science continually outpaces personal experience. Allow me to explain. My parents never grew up with social media, computer viruses, or any of the dangers of the internet. However, these are things that became a part of my youth, and my parents admit they were worried when other parents would talk to them about what trouble their child wound up in. Personal experience was little help to them when making decisions regarding their child in the realm of knowledge they hadn't yet entered. So, regarding PGD and parenthood, I think that as genetic decision making becomes more normalized parents must educate themselves to the dangers, shrug off false precedents, and discussion must ensue over the ethics of embryonic genetic modification.
"If intelligence is something valuable and possible for the parent to pass on to their child, then the parent should provide that advantage to their child."
ReplyDeleteBetter still: society should provide that advantage to all children. John Dewey's statement should be our guide, in charting these new waters of genetic engineering: "What the best and wisest parent wants for his child, that must the community want for all children." They're ALL "ours"... and yet, not really ours at all.
I agree that we are being out paced by science, and while we continue to see that, many of us are quick to show support to these advancements and highlight the positivity of these advances without shining that same light on the uncertainties of these new technologies.
ReplyDeleteThis is a trend we see in all aspects of our lives, when the internet first became easily accessible, we neglected the dangers presented in this new platform: predators, hacking, identity theft, etc. and society dove into it causing many to fall victim. How do we learn to stop making the same mistakes when new territories are discovered?
I think the drawback in any pre-birth testing and screens is as mentioned in the previous chapters in our textbook: science is filled with uncertainty and what if we get it wrong. Predictions can be made but they remain only that... predictions. As soon as the prediction is wrong, the entire process is questioned and maybe deemed faulty by others.
ReplyDelete