Genetics and ethics
I have a bothersome ethical problem. In class we were discussing genetic diseases and testing for them. Amnios are done to do some basic DNA genetic testing to see if the child has down syndrome for example. But now there are even 'better' ways to diagnoses genetic diseases. By undergoing in vitro fertilization, you can first have your embyros tested for certain genetic diseases. Embyros that carry diseases such as Huntington's, cystic fibrosis, and sickle cell are 'thrown' away and never implanted because no one wants to have a child that will be sick and in a lot of pain. And, this technique is considered better because you are not having an abortion. However, what is the difference? Life was still created and then thrown away because it was sick. The only difference is at most 24 weeks. The professor seemed to think that there was a difference because the embyros were discared before implantation.
Yet, at the same time I can see 'good'. I would love my child no matter what. But, if I could prevent my child from suffering, isnt that good?
And even before getting pregnant, you can do testing to determine the odds of your child becoming sick with diseases like cystic fibrosis. You can then choose to adopt if you know you are a carrier. That I have no problem with. There is a place in Brooklyn in a Jewish community that is very orthodox and has arranged marriages. As a teenager, they are tested for several genetic diseases, including Tay Sechs, a horrible disease to watch a child die from at three. Before a marriage is arranged, they call the center and tell them who the marriage is between. If they are found to both be carriers for Tay sechs for example, they are advised not to make the match. SInce this program, there have been zero babies born with genetic disorders. How awesome.
But as I write this, am I confused because do I not want a child of mine to suffer, or confused because I cannot accept my own selfishness. Do I see the good in this evil because I will not have to watch a my own child die and feel the emptiness and despair that comes from the death of a child?
Is that what science truly is? Is it just a means for us to fulfill our selfish needs? DO we create medicine not for the sick, but rather the healthy? When does it stop being Gods will and begins to be our attempt to play God?
What a slippery slope we live on. How soon before you crash?
Yet, at the same time I can see 'good'. I would love my child no matter what. But, if I could prevent my child from suffering, isnt that good?
And even before getting pregnant, you can do testing to determine the odds of your child becoming sick with diseases like cystic fibrosis. You can then choose to adopt if you know you are a carrier. That I have no problem with. There is a place in Brooklyn in a Jewish community that is very orthodox and has arranged marriages. As a teenager, they are tested for several genetic diseases, including Tay Sechs, a horrible disease to watch a child die from at three. Before a marriage is arranged, they call the center and tell them who the marriage is between. If they are found to both be carriers for Tay sechs for example, they are advised not to make the match. SInce this program, there have been zero babies born with genetic disorders. How awesome.
But as I write this, am I confused because do I not want a child of mine to suffer, or confused because I cannot accept my own selfishness. Do I see the good in this evil because I will not have to watch a my own child die and feel the emptiness and despair that comes from the death of a child?
Is that what science truly is? Is it just a means for us to fulfill our selfish needs? DO we create medicine not for the sick, but rather the healthy? When does it stop being Gods will and begins to be our attempt to play God?
What a slippery slope we live on. How soon before you crash?