Eugenics entails how sexual reproduction can be restructured. Positive eugenics entails the restructuring of sexual reproduction to enhance sexual reproduction of persons with preferred traits. Alteration of sexual reproduction to reduce the sexual reproduction of persons with negative traits is negative eugenics. Deductively, the case in case study one is a case of negative eugenics because it entails the modification of sexual reproduction to promote the sexual reproduction of a child who is free from Huntington’s Disease, which is an undesirable trait.
It would be acceptable for the married couple in case study one to select the sex of the child they wish to sire. However, the major concern at the moment is not the sex of the baby to be sired. Instead, the parents wish to have a child who is free from Huntington’s disease. For this reason, the parents could select a male or female embryo that does not have Huntington’s Disease. This would be different in that the process of embryo selection would be prolonged due to the procedures involved in selecting an embryo that does not have Huntington’s Disease and that has the desired gender trait.
It would be unethical for the couple in the current case study to sire a baby oblivious to the fact that the mother could show signs of Huntington’s Disease when the baby is still at infancy stage. This is because of the primary fact that Huntington’s Disease triggers the occurrence of symptoms aligned with those of mental disorders. If the mother developed such symptoms when the baby is a few years old, the mother would be able to provide the adequate care needed to the child.
With the availability of technology that can ensure sexual reproduction of a baby who is free from genetically transmitted conditions, it would be unethical for this couple to sire without ensuring that the baby would not have the disease. With the presence of this technology, the parents have no excuse siring a baby with a genetic condition that would impair the child’s life at a later stage in life. In the absence of the current technology, it would be ethical for a known carrier to have a child. This is because the couple would have no option of ensuring that they sire a baby with particular traits.
The couple in the current case acted ethically by using technology to sire a baby with the desired trait (s). The notion that the couple acted ethically is supported by utilitarianism theory. This theory is based on the premise that an action is justified if it brings pleasurable consequences to an individual (Runzheimer & Larsen, 2011). Siring a baby who is free from Huntington’s Disease is the pleasurable consequence. Utilitarianism justifies actions that offer an ample platform whereby an individual can attain their interests.
The mother in this case was using a traditional method of treatment; Cao Gio, which inflicted injuries on the child. This treatment should not be perceived as useless because perhaps there are certain lessons that can be drawn from it. Traditional medicine has often offered a platform for the development of contemporary treatment options. Therefore, the use of Cao Gio treatment in the current case should not be repealed.
The physician should have stopped the cultural practice if there was enough evidence to suggest that the mother was abusing the child. However, the mother seems to have subjected the child to pain because she wanted to heal the child. The mother did not have an ill intent when practicing Cao Gio traditional treatment on her child. Notable is the fact that medical practitioners are required by law to report patient injuries that are likely caused by abuse. This should have been the case in the current case, but the injuries are from traditional treatment, which may not be termed as child abuse.
The physician in the current case should be concerned about alienating the mother in the current case and persons from her ethnicity from modern medicine. Evidently, people have freedom to have certain beliefs on issues aligned with medicine. Therefore, people can practice traditional medicine as long as they do not infringe on other people’s freedom. The mere fact that a person practices traditional medicine does not justify their alienation from modern medicine. A physician should thus treat all patients equally regardless of whether they practice traditional medicine or not.
Upon review of the current case, I am of the opinion that the physician should not report the mother to child support services. The notion that the mother should not be reported is supported by cultural relativism principle, which dictates that all cultural values are equal. Therefore, the mother cultural belief in traditional healing (Cao Gio) as opposed to modern medicine does not mean that her decision to opt for Cao Gio is unethical. With regards to cultural relativism principle, Cao Gio is a valid treatment, which should not necessarily be understood by those who do not conform to it.
There are varying treatment options for abdominal aortic aneurysm. In the current care, the physicians could have opted for interventional repair as a treatment option. This method is less invasive as compared to surgical repair that was used by the physicians in the current case. Interventional repair entails the use of imaging to aid that attachment of a graft and a catheter into the artery of the patient ailing from abdominal aortic aneurysm. While it is true that interventional repair was a treatment option in the current case, it was not a feasible option because the patient was an erotic dancer. The patient’s erotic dancing practice would cause movement of graft, which would increase the chances of split or bursting of the aneurysm.
There are times when taking someone’s autonomy may be right. This is often in cases where the person’s autonomy impacts negatively on other people’s life. The case is different in the context of medicine where patient’s decision is critical. In line with the current case, there are high chances the court would find the physicians decision unethical. The principle of care ethics can be used to ethical take someone’s autonomy. Care ethics dictates that someone’s action on another person may be termed ethical if it was done as a way of caring (Runzheimer & Larsen, 2011). In the current case, the physicians’ decision was justified by care ethics because the physicians did the surgery out of care for the patient.
If I were one of the health care workers managing the patient in the current case, I would not have performed surgery against her consent. My decision is based on Kantian ethics, which clearly articulate that moral acts are those that conform to existing rules. In the context of medicine, the rules dictate that invasive medical procedures including surgery should be performed with permission or consent from the patient. Therefore, I would have followed this rule to the later.
Reference
Runzheimer, J., & Larsen, L. J. (2011). Medical ethics for dummies. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
