According to Henry Greely, genetic testing has played a role in pregnancy for over 50 years.
The article continues with the following:
"Today, bad news from prenatal testing leaves would-be parents with two options: terminate the pregnancy or prepare for the birth of an ill or at-risk child. For over 30 years, parents have been able to avoid this dilemma by turning to pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD). This procedure starts with in vitro fertilization (IVF), but then tests embryos before they are transferred into the uterus. For many people, choosing not to transfer an embryo destined to have a genetic disease raises less concern than aborting an already implanted embryo or growing fetus."
I am curious to know everyone's thoughts on this. I know this topic is one that some would not poke with a 15 foot pole; however, I am curious. Is genetic testing on the unborn ethical? And if yes, how far is too far?
After reading this article, I was reminded of the book Brave New World (1932). The book is set in year 2540 and describes a world in which embryos are given differing intelligence levels based on chemical treatment. While this is not happening today, I feel that with the speed that biomedical technology is advancing, this could be closer than year 2540. Thoughts?
I understand that this is sort of an extreme when it comes to genetic testing and that this is not the current state of the world. I also understand that genetic testing does have benefits. However, it does make me think, if the technology is available one day, what will happen?
Are we on a slippery slope that must inevitably take us from PGD to Huxley's dystopian BNW? I tend to resist predictions and fears based on inevitability, so long as we raise these ethical questions in a timely way we're not at risk of sliding inadvertently into dystopia. We can still choose a better 2540 than Huxley imagined. (Well, WE can't... but our human successors can.) So I say yes to PGD. Proceed with caution and reflection, but proceed.
ReplyDeleteThe ability to perform such treatments will come from those with different ethics than todays generation. The premise of genetic testing on the unborn is going to come down to the ethics of those doing the procedures, and their understanding of the science. Whether they think life begins at conception/fertilization raises the ethical issue of medical paternalism (the idea that the doctor always knows best, beyond what is known about the medical facts and consequences). The autonomy of an unborn patient is understood today to be under each individual’s discretion with some believing they have as much value as you or me, and others who think they do not even have the right to life. This makes the ethics of it to be individualized. If the technology ever becomes available I can’t imagine a point in which every line isn’t crossed. Great post Julianna! Really impressive how many sources you connected.
ReplyDeleteThis article reminds me of that movie GATACA, the basic idea being some dystopian future where kids are created using computer programs where parents can pick and choose what aspects they have and any child conceived through sex is considered an "undesirable" and given a lowly job. I think being able to prevent human suffering is a good thing, but putting the possibility of suffering above the definite human life feels odd to me. This idea of designer babies is also a really slippery slope to eugenics (which I'm surprised we haven't discussed at length in this class yet); this is really scary to me because in a reality where this is common practice we would lose a lot of genetic diversity and human diversity, which is bad for both population survival and for the human experience. If my parents got to design me to be what they wanted, I would be very very different today, as I'm sure most of us would be. Plus with this technology, who knows what truly evil person could harness it to create a world where there was only one sex, one race, one religion, even one hair type/color. I don't think IVF tech is bad; it's opened so many doors to couples who couldn't otherwise conceive on their own. But we must be cautious moving forward and be aware of the immoral desires of some people with access to this technology. Awesome post Julianna, thank you for sharing!
ReplyDeleteGreat insight Julianna! Personally, I do not know where I stand on this issue. With recent advances in technology, so much is becoming possible to quickly. Eugenics is an area of interest to me personally, especially with medical advances such as CRISPR that allow the alteration of DNA. Would you opt to change a potentially lethal mutation in your children if you could? Personally, yes. Is it ethically the right thing to do? Beats me.
ReplyDeleteJust because there are both good and bad uses for this technology is not a reason to dismiss it and fear it. Like everything in life, there needs to be a balanced approach that will give the most benefit and do the least harm. The big problem today is with who can be trusted to draw the boundaries.
ReplyDeleteI agree, I think technology is going to advance whether we like it or not, and with this will come new possibilities that some of us many not agree with. I think situations like these depends on the specific view points. I think I am more neutral to this, because like you said technology has both good and bad uses so it all depends on whether or not you are okay with it.
DeleteI think the basic idea behind Brave New World is spot on. Not everyone needs to have intelligence, and specifically people at the bottom doing menial labor would only suffer from having intelligence. So why not make those who have and those who don't, from a societal standpoint it makes perfect sense.
ReplyDeleteI do not agree with anything I just wrote, I am merely pointing out if you hold the well being of the society over the individual you are immediately willing to sacrifice the choices of others.