Technology has become a buzzword in many spheres on the contemporary life, including the field of medical sciences. While this is the case, the world of medicine and other social sciences have turned to the principle of ethics as a potential factor that can establish a middle ground on the application of reproductive technologies. The primary tenets of the anti-reproductive technologies argument revolve around the sanctity of life. Foremost, the reproductive technologies violate the rights of a child. Secondly, they ignore the fact that human life begins at conception – which means that it should be handled in the light of the principle of ethics, justice, beneficence, autonomy and Nonmaleficence (Schenker, 2011, pp. 91). This essay seeks to explain the extent to which the principle of ethics, which is so much opposed to the reproductive technologies, can be used to establish a middle ground on the same.
Typically, the principle of ethics is based on four primary factors – respect or autonomy, Nonmaleficence, Justice and beneficence. Autonomy refers to an individual’s right to make decisions, hold on to their personal opinions, and determine their destiny. Nonmaleficence simply means “do no harm”, and is the maxim that guides physicians in the field of medicine. Justice basically refers to the act of treating people right, and justifiably distributing the benefits to all (Dooley et al, 2003, pp. 67). Beneficence implies that all physicians should endeavor to ‘do good’. On the 10th day of March 1987, the Vatican released a 40-page document, which caused a stir in the world of bioethics. The document, titled Instruction on Respect for Human Life in Its Origin and on the Dignity of Procreation, sought to apply ethical principles to the fact that reproductive technology was gaining tremendous acceptance in the western world. While there are many arguments – both in favor and against the reproductive technologies, it is a matter of common knowledge that the anti side of the argument outweighs the pro side of it.
The proponents of reproductive technologies base their argument on the fact that such technologies help the childless couples get children. While this argument holds water, it ignores the rights of the child brought forth. This argument is rather mean as it considers the couples’ needs and wants, while ignoring the fact that a child has the right to be conceived, carried in a human womb, brought into the world through natural birth, and brought up within marriage (Morrison & Furlong, 2014, pp.112). Anything that violates these rights violates the principle of ethics, and especially the respect part of it. Secondly, the sanctity of human life is one thing that ought to be held in the highest regard at all times. While there has been a heated debate over it, it is true that human life begins at conception. Using embryos for experimentation purposes is ethically unjustified because it violates the Nonmaleficence aspect of the ethical principle. By experimenting, the physicians are not doing any good to the embryo, which is, in actual fact, a full human being. On the contrary, they could be doing something that is potentially harmful.
In conclusion, it is clear from the foregoing that the principle of ethics is straightforwardly opposed to reproductive ethics, but some aspects of it, such as autonomy give the clients the power to make choices. Worth of note is the reality that in the contemporary world, the reproductive technologies are being used by both healthy productive people, and the ones incapable of reproduction. Artificial insemination using donor sperms and female ova lacks in moral justification because as much as it is procreative, it ignores some aspects of human reproduction especially in the marriage institution (Dooley et al, 2003, pp.71). According to medical and social science ethicists, the process of human reproduction ought to be a combination of biological, emotional and spiritual elements. Artificial insemination may be procreative but not unitized. While this is the case, the reproductive technologies are more of a problem than a solution, but for as long as autonomy is an ingredient of the principle of ethics; people can resort to such methods of reproduction. Even so, the bottom line is that the party most negatively impacted on is the ‘designer’ baby.
References
Dooley, D., Assessment workshop, & Workshop. (2003). Ethics of new reproductive technologies: Cases and questions. New York, NY [u.a.: Berghahn
Morrison, E. & Furlong, B. (2014). Health care ethics: Critical issues for the 21st century. Burlington, MA. Jones & Bartlett Learning
Schenker, J. G. (2011). Ethical dilemmas in assisted reproductive technologies. Berlin: De Gruyter.
