Posted on 03/06/2009 11:18:15 AM PST by GOPGuide
Over at Opposing Views, bioethicist Jacob Appel argues that pre-implantation genetic screening for severe disease mutations should be compulsory for parents undergoing IVF.
Appell dodges one obvious criticism of this suggestion - that it unacceptably limits parental autonomy - by pointing out that "Western societies have long acknowledged that parental authority cannot undermine the medical interests of a child". As examples, Appell cites the facts that Jehovah's Witnesses cannot deny their own children blood transfusions, however strong their religious opposition, and that "American courts consistently compel pediatric cancer therapy, even when parents object".
Given these precedents, Appell argues that allowing children to be brought into the world with a severe genetic disease, when this situation could be easily avoided with large-scale genetic screening, is morally indefensible and analogous to child abuse.
I'm wary of any argument that violates parental autonomy - but Appell's argument certainly seems consistent with emerging Western values weighing child protection above parental choice (so long, of course, as such protection does not extend to embryos).
I actually suspect that top-down coercion will not ultimately be required to enforce embryo screening for severe diseases, however - social pressure will be a far more effective tool.
Once pre-natal screening for severe disease (both through IVF embryo testing and maternal blood testing) becomes effective and cheap, parents of disabled children will be increasingly viewed by society as being responsible for their child's disease. Social ostracism will always trump legality as an incentive to change moral values.
Whether you see such a world as right or wrong will of course depend on your political and religious beliefs, but I really can't see how these changes can be avoided; they are an inevitable consequence of advances in genetic technology coupled with human nature. In other words: like it or not, genetic diseases like cystic fibrosis and muscular dystrophy will almost certainly be little more than historical curiosities within a decade or two.
I must admit that I find it hard to view this prospect with anything approaching sadness.
Eugenics rears its ugly head once more.
The idea that CF and Muscular Dystrophy being things of the past makes no sense, unless you screen ALL pregnancies, even then you are bound to have false negatives. There is also the problem that in many genetic disorders upwards of 50% are new mutations that occur without any parent carrying the defective gene. Also many disorders occur after fertilization and only effect certain cells, so an amnio would do nothing.
The ADA should stamp this out.
The Left claimed it was child abuse to let Trig Palin be born.
So the disabled don’t have the right to be born?
In that kind of perveted system, if you wanted a “defective” child, the state/insurance would not pay for it’s care. Face with that (and with the desire for “convienance”), abortions would increase bigtime.
I could see (within 200-300 years of selecitve breeding and genetive manipulation) an “inbred, mentally-hubris” species not adaptive to change with little variation. Those not augmented will be regulated to “second-tier” status. One only needs to read the “Dune” series (or “Gatica” movie) to see the consequences.
Face it, humans survive when we’re mutts. :)
We need a constitutional amendment to protect humans against genetic discrimination (in determining birth, insurance coverage, employment, etc.). Not because these rights “don’t already exist” but to take the issue out of the hands of activist judges.
Pre-implantation is sort of hurrying things a little, isn’t it?
I have just two words for this piece of trash.
God Bless your family.
Have you seen the move idiocracy?
No, that implies ineptitude. The Left is EVIL.
In English the word left comes from 'lyft' meaning worthless. Italians use 'sinistra' or sinister.
I wonder how many advocates of forced embryo screening are opposed to using the same State power to require that women wanting an abortion must be shown an ultrasound image of their unborn child.
Don't forget the false positives (saying the baby has a problem when there is no problem). How many children will die because mommy got a test that said there was something wrong, and it turned out that the only problem was in the test, not with the baby? Once baby is sucked out with a vacuum and thrown in the trash, it's a little late to say,"oopsie".
Many tests for rare conditions, including the initial screening test for HIV, have more false positives than valid positives. Testing without a reason will vastly increase the proportion of positive results that are false.
Of course not.
The WHOLE POINT here is to DEVALUE human life.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.