PLAGIARISM FREE WRITING SERVICE
We accept
MONEY BACK GUARANTEE
100%
QUALITY

Pre Implantation Genetic Tests Philosophy Essay

Humanity revolves around procreation. We have to reproduce to be able to create future generations. Before few years, technology and medication has gained an immense amount of understanding of being pregnant and the underlying developmental levels of how it operates. Furthermore, research is progressively bettering, leading to our ability to diagnose, manipulate and sometimes treat genetic abnormalities. Procedures such as the pre-implantation genetic medical diagnosis (PGD) were developed as a means to avoid selective abortions by discovering that the embryo is free of terrible lethal hereditary diseases such as Huntington's disease. However, recently PGD has been raising some honest questions as people started by using this technology for clinically unrelated and unjustified reasons. Vanity and supplementary motives of patients who use PGD for the creation of 'designer infants' and 'savior siblings' violates the essential theory of morality. Using PGD for reasons other than justified genetic screening is impermissible because it treats the baby as a way not as leads to itself; therefore, it violates Kant's second categorical imperative.

Scientific Background

PGD works through a process of In Vitro Fertilization (IVF). In this procedure, "multiple eggs are produced, retrieved from the ovaries and [personally] fertilized with the husband's sperm" in a lab, outside of the female body3. As the embryos develop in vitro, embryo biopsy is performed by removing a single cell from each three day old embryo4. These skin cells are analyzed-by a number of methods-for particular chromosomal or genetic abnormalities to be able to tell apart which embryos are free from hereditary disease. Normal, healthy embryos are then moved in to the uterus where they can expand and turn into a healthy child.

Arguments

Kant

Immanuel Kant came up with a moral school of thought that was predicated on a theory of the "Categorical Imperative. " These are valid principles structured off of the concept of work that must be obeyed by all and are good in and of themselves. The second categorical imperative states that you need to "Act so that you treat humanity, whether within your own person or in the person of other, always at the same time as a finish and never just as a way to a finish"2. In other words, you have perfect duty to not use someone as a means to achieve a personal goal. This principle of rationality formulates the central of moral legislations and requirements that logical agents are required to follow. Furthermore, each rational being has autonomy, or a free of charge will to identify their own rules. However, possession of autonomy by each being implies that all individuals should be treated similarly, with the same amount of value and one cannot infringe on the others logical will. The intuitive essence of mankind, therefore, things to using others as a mere tool since it overlooks one's integrity and humanness. So, one cannot assert a moral to own a person-like a piece of property-because proprietary right over a person denies any presence of a free of charge rational action; furthermore, it denies the individual the right to be an end in themselves. But, humans have value and well worth; hence, they might need to be well known. Each person deserves to be reputed for his/her integral being (of who they are). While PGD is conducted on fetuses, its use continues to be unjustified because fetuses are potential individuals and for that reason, require the same amount of respect as any other person. Furthermore, the use of PGD in creating 'custom made infants' and 'savior siblings' violates Kant's second categorical essential.

Designer Babies

A very compelling discussion against PGD develops out of its questionable potential used in creating perfect 'custom babies. ' The technology behind PGD allows parents to select specific and nonessential features (such as attention color, height, athletic potential, even cleverness) that they need their child expressing. Such technology is reminiscent of the Build-a-Bear Workshop but for grown-ups. Using PGD as a means for eugenics is fallacious and unjustified in lots of ways, such as its violation of the next categorical imperative.

Parents have abused PGD use to be able to own it focus on their specific conceited expectations of fabricating a 'perfect child. ' They vainly pick and find the attributes they find beneficial and be rid of ones they find 'poor' or 'unperfect' so they could gratify their goal of not having a financially and socially burdensome child. Not only is this wrong since it discriminates against the disabled but also because it violates the primary value of mankind by infringing after the child's autonomous will by treating him/her as a means to an unacceptable end. The parents public and monetary ends are being pursued as the child's ends are being neglected. In 'creating' a kid, parents destruct the child's will (in a few various ways) therefore, they fail to treat them as a finish in themselves. Physically, parents annihilate certain features the youngster would naturally have got (not to mention the obliteration of unwanted fetuses). In so doing, parents neglect to treat the child humanely. Also, modifying mental capabilities of a child is deceptive and confuses their will. Hence, it overlooks the logical capacity of a-potential-rational agent and his/her result in himself/herself. Finally, parents limit their child's will by modifying their whole mental and physical being and not permitting them to pursue their individual goals as they see fit4. In order for the mental and physical humanity to be treated as an end, one's will must are present. However, when parents choose traits because of their child, they overlook their child's dignified and humane right to be how they were naturally designed to be. They use the youngster as a way to attain some vain, sociable or economical end, therefore, violating Kant's second categorical imperative. Every human being is a rational agent (even the fetus which really is a potential person) and has autonomy; therefore, you need to not be cared for as a way to an end. Because the use of PGD allows parents to utilize their children as a means to a unjustified end, its use is impermissible.

Savior Siblings

Another issue with using PGD increases out of its unjustified creation of 'savior siblings. ' A 'savior sibling' is a child created by tissue typing and help of PGD in trust of providing a perfect HLA-match for the significantly sick sibling in order to save his/her life. As the engineered child does not benefit or is harmed, the implications of such process are morally unethical. It objectifies the kid, looking at him/her as only commodity, disregarding the child's humane right to equality. Dealing with such child as an instrument to cure another violates an moral principle of dealing with a person as a finish in himself/herself (violates the second CI) because it uses the kid as a way for which to treat the unhealthy more aged sibling. Such applications of PGD resemble slavery, where the savior child is a 'slave' and the parent or guardian is a slave-owner. The father or mother would possess a right to possess the 'slave' child affirming the child as a product. But a kid is not an object to get possession over; the kid is someone who requires value and owns an autonomous will to be a finish in himself/herself. Therefore, building a 'slave' or 'savior sibling' would violate the categorical crucial because of the demolishment of the child's free logical action. Thus, use of PGD for the creation of 'savior (slave) siblings' is unjustified because it firmly violates Kant's second categorical essential.

Furthermore, creation of 'savior siblings' contributes to other problems. In addition to being unethical, there is a strong belief that a child's profound personality would be impaired. They would be looked at as a second gain, a tool solely suitable for the goal of saving another life. This impaired will of the kid would lead to many internal problems. The mental aspect of the child's humane aspect would be compromised-the child would lack self-esteem and self-rescpect-as he/she wouldn't normally be praised for his/her specific value but instead as a way to a particular end. Parents, by using PGD for instrumentalization of the children, would violate the child's autonomous will and specific personal value by using them as mere methods to parental ends and "limit[ing] a childs to an available future"4.

In sum, PGD promotes unjustified creation of 'custom newborns' and 'savior siblings. ' The usage of this technology allows parents to utilize their children (or potential children) as a means to satisfy their parental end; therefore, neglecting the child's autonomous will to be an end in himself/herself. Thus using PGD to create 'designer babies' and 'savior siblings' is impermissible since it violates Kant's second categorical imperative.

Opposition

PGD is argued to be unethical in this paper; however, others view its use appropriate and nothing more than a legitimate autonomous right of parents to create healthy children. They believe because parents are the most socially and economically influenced by the delivery of a child, then they must have the right and independence to find the identity of these offspring. Having a healthy child is in the parents interest since it is less socially and fiscally constraining and burdensome. Besides, being healthy is in the best interest of the kid as well. The child would want to live a happy and healthy life, free of disease. If PGD can offer an instrument for eliminating such lethal and stigmatizing disease form modern culture, then it ought to be flawlessly plausible to have the ability to utilize it. Parents have the right to choose what it best for his or her children and family; therefore, using PGD as a means that will allow them to select for attributes they see best fit for their child would be perfectly justified.

Rebuttal

However, while these are plausible known reasons for the utilization of PGD, they are not strong enough to justify its immoral applications. Every single individual-even the person and the disabled-has a right to autonomy. No-one can or can explain what life will probably be worth living; furthermore, no person can impose the quality of life of principle on another. As recently stated, we cannot say that the impaired lead a good or a negative life; it is simply not for us to decide. In fact, values of good and bad are of individual conception and will vary from person to person. Parents need to take responsibility, fiscally and mentally because of their child no matter its physical well-being. Good mother or father do not choose; furthermore, they don't use their child as a means to appease their interest of having a less socially and fiscally constraining life. Using PGD for vain reasons is never morally justified. Using PGD for medicinal reasons is appropriate; however, using it for 'designer babies' and 'savior siblings' violates the essential basic principle of ethics (Kant's second categorical imperative) and therefore, can't ever be morally justified.

Conclusion

In finish, PGD has revolutionized duplication. It has granted gain access to into a remote control world by allowing folks to select favorable hereditary characteristics of offspring before implantation. However, while its appealing view of the world without struggling and disease looks interesting, moral justifications of PGD and its own policy increase many concerns. More specifically, a few of the issues by using this technology package with the unjustified creation of 'creator babies' and 'savior siblings. ' These are serious issues, the implications which can have damaging and irreversible effects on today's and future generations. While some of the applications of PGD may be accepted; nevertheless, as of now, the potential risks outweigh the benefits. It is not medicine's role to make yet another socially accepted or be better-off. Those are not the types of standards for us to choose. Intentional destruction of potential individual life is never justified. PGD runs over a dangerously thin type of potential medicinal advantage and participating in God. It also violates Kant's second categorical imperative by treating fetuses as only means to an end. Therefore, until clear, strictly medicinal and ethical applications of PGD are proven, the use of this technology can not be justified.

More than 7 000 students trust us to do their work
90% of customers place more than 5 orders with us
Special price $5 /page
PLACE AN ORDER
Check the price
for your assignment
FREE