A Girl or A Boy . . . You Pick
In the July 23, 2002 issue of the Los Angeles Times Newspaper, there was an article entitled "A Girl or a Boy, You Pick" written by Aaron Zitner. The article discusses the embryo-sorting technique called pre-implantation genetic diagnosis or "PGD" and how embryo sorting makes it possible to screen for gender and diseases prior to implantation in the uterus. In the article, the author brings up some of the ethical questions PGD raises with regard to the embryos no one wants. Is it proper to discard an embryo based on its genes or gender? Which lives are not worth living? Who decides? In this paper I will argue against embryo selection for these reasons: First of all, PGD is the ultimate form of discrimination, a discrimination based on the very building blocks of a person's life; secondly if PGD technology was available and used years ago the world more than likely would have lost the great ideals and works of contributors with genetically acquired disabilities. In the last few years a genetic basis has been discovered not just for various illnesses, but for such behavioral traits as shyness, sexual promiscuity, musical ability, risk-taking and over-eating and in the future it may be po
A concern not addressed by supporters of PGD is how the children of the future who are not "genetically engineered" will function in society and if they will be able to compete. Will they spend their lives feeling they are not good enough or wishing they were more perfect. The consequences of such a world are considered in the movie Gattaca where children are labeled for life as a "valid" or an "in-valid". As shown in the movie the "perfect" genetic human specimens known as "valids" are not any happier or better adjusted than those "in-valids" who have not been genetically "adjusted". Before we all jump into the "gene age" we need to consider what impact technologies like PGD will have on those that use them, the children who are born from them and on society as a whole. Dr. Mark Hughes of Wayne State University in Detroit who helped develop embryo diagnosis takes a different position on PGD. In the article he is quoted as saying: "Some people that have known genetic predispositions in the family gene line often roll the dice and hope for the best or they become pregnant and use a prenatal test such as amniocentesis followed by abortion if the test turns up a problem." He believes that with embryo sorting, these people can start their pregnancy on Day One with the knowledge their child will be healthy. He also poses the question "how can it be more ethically troublesome to test before a pregnancy than later when a fetus has a heartbeat and moving?" I do agree with the Dr. Hughes' position that abortion is an evasive procedure that often carries a great emotional burden. However, embryo screening allows parents to judge and reject many potential children at once. Since it bypasses the pain of abortion, what is to keep people from abusing the procedure to reject not only the embryos that are unhealthy but the embryos because they are merely undesirable? Although the use of PGD research offers the benefit of breeding out certain forms of disease, as stated in the article, some fertility specialists say that scientists are bound to create tests not only for disease but for various traits such as height
Some common words found in the essay are:
Aaron Zitner, Dr Hughes', Holocaust Reference, University Detroit, Tracy Otte, Disability Oakland, Stephen Hawking, Walt Disney, American Eugenicists, Elements American, genetic selection, quality life, pgd technology, pre-implantation genetic diagnosis, pre-implantation genetic, pgd children, allows parents, genetic diagnosis, technology available, reasons pgd, technology available ago, ultimate form discrimination, pgd technology available, ultimate form,
Approximate Word count = 1440
Approximate Pages = 6 (250 words per page double spaced)
|
