Background:
- Introduction:
Our position is against choosing traits, which is a violation of the principles behind biomedical ethics. Trait and gene selection is morally wrong and defies nature. With the advancement in biomedical and genetic engineering, more and more people are aware of the possibility of selecting traits for their children. On the positive side, such technology and possibilities are outstanding innovation and shows the great leaps taken by science. On the other hand, having such power has brought about a lot of discrimination towards those viewed as genetic flaws. The effects of trait selection are negative and may continue to be felt long into the future.
According to Sandel, this power over nature will rob us the ability to appreciate life as is and have the need to want to change or fix flaws in life. Life does not always happen as we plan or expect but that is what makes it beautiful. This also applies to reproduction; the diversity that life gives us is what makes life interesting. If everyone planning for children selected the traits of their children, the world would be filled with people with similar characteristics, and this would be boring. Similar here means that the traits selected for the perfect offspring for different people would be the same. This is because society has a predefined perception of what qualities and traits makes a person perfect.
Justice/Reordering society, Genetic Exceptionalism, and Reproduction Framework:
The utilitarian approach assesses the biomedical ethics issue through weighing the outcomes, consequences against the benefits and costs, and how all these affects the different stakeholders involved. Based on this approach, it is possible to have the benefits outweigh the costs of trait selection. Therefore, the practice may be viewed as ethical. The communitarian approach, however views this issue while referring to the common good of the society. Trait selection does not serve any common good in society. Therefore, based on the communitarian approach it is unethical. The ethical issues involved with genetic enhancement or trait selection is the violation of individual rights, the effects on fairness, and the change in anatomy. The society is embracing this technology advancement, which allows humans to ‘play God’. In a utilitarian approach, the most ethical approach is one, which has the best balance of benefits and cost or negative consequence/ outcome. The relative value of a person’s preferences, contentment, suffering, monetary gain, or loss and the effects, both short-term and long-term, of undertaking trait or gene selection, are what define the outcome in this context.
Biodiversity in humanity is an important as these biological differences make life interesting, intriguing and an adventure. In regards to randomized inheritance or the genetic lottery, society must accept what life hands them. This way the society may be able to learn to deal with the social and environmental factors, which contribute, to the difficulties experienced by those with disability. It should be made clear that disability does not necessarily mean inability as portrayed by Harriet McBryde Johnson and Adrienne Asch. The reproduction framework defines the various methods of reproduction. Those who undergo assisted reproduction mostly carry out the trait or gene selection. Parents should not be able to buy genes they want for their children as it is not natural and is ethically wrong. Parents want to have the best children, but this does not mean engineering perfect children. If such a procedure should take part, there should not be any support from insurance companies. This may increase the number of parents who might want to carry out trait and gene selection.
Conclusion:
Although, the society is embracing these technological and biological advancements, pro-socially oriented rights are against trait selection. It will not be in good conscience or proper to allow gene or trait selection in our society as not everyone has access to the means or resources to have the life they want. What should be examined is why a few in the society have the means to enable enhancement, which will in turn perpetuate unfairness and disparities in society. In conclusion, this power and control over nature is an amazing idea but in reality, it affects the appreciation of life’s randomized inheritance and genetic lottery, which is a gift to humanity.
Works Cited:
"Daniel Callahan's New York Times Op-Ed: "On Dying After Your Time"." The Hastings Center. N.p., n.d. Web. 4 Dec. 2013. <http://www.thehastingscenter.org/Default.aspx>.
Asch, Adrienne . "Prenatal diagnosis and selective abortion: a challenge to practice and policy.." American Public Health Association. National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, n.d. Web. 4 Dec. 2013. <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1508970/>.
Johnson, Harriet. "Unspeakable Conversations." The New York Times. The New York Times, 16 Feb. 2003. Web. 4 Dec. 2013. <http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/16/magazine/unspeakable-conversations.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm>.
Sandel, Michael . "The Atlantic | April 2004 | The Case Against Perfection | Sandel." The Atlantic | April 2004 | The Case Against Perfection | Sandel. N.p., n.d. Web. 4 Dec. 2013. <http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/2004/04/sandel.htm>.
