Bioethics - Assignment Example

Answer to Question In the case of Greta, the decision to initiate enhancement is definitely a kind of cheating. When dealing with the idea of cognitive enhancement, it is good to consider whether the person initiates the enhancement for to achieve excellence in the process or excellence in terms of the outcome. In any case, it comes out that the use of drugs for cognitive enhancement hardly cheapens accomplishments that are achieved under their influence, but rather the enhancement in the same line with the collaborative authorship that are well-established. It is also suggested that before conducting any medical process, like in this case, issues of justice, the associated value of the process, scientific validity, as well as respect for the subject should be considered (Steinbock & John, 2008, pg.317 ). Such conceptions shift the praise and blame locus from personal creators to ultimate products of personal efforts. Given that people criticize the use of drugs such as hallucinogens and other drugs such as steroids used by athletes, the use of cognitive enhancements should not be taken for any excuse. One of the many reasons why it would be unethical to use the cognitive enhancement drugs is that even after achieving excellent results, the case of being incapacitated to portray maximum concentration would reoccur in future (Goodman, 2010, pg149). While it is unethical and cheating to use cognitive enhancers, it is also immoral for the physician to prescribe the drugs to Greta. This is because the physician understands the work ethics in that drugs should only be prescribe for medical problems only. The course of medication in this case is completely different from what is expected of medical practitioners. Again the ethical concern that Dr. Beckwith should have is the aspect of prescribing medication without any medical condition being treated. The purpose of the medication is only to enhance Greta’s concentration, which on one hand could be attributed to cheating or perceived as a form of cheating (Goodman, 2010, pg.148). Besides, as medical professional, Dr. Beckwith understands the problems associated with the use of cognitive enhancements especially the associated side-effects. Besides, there are increasing cases of opinions as well as commentaries that are increasingly being written about the possible risks associated with cognitive enhancers. The case is even worse for the healthy individuals who do not aims to correct their cognitive abilities but rather wish to enhance them in order to appear as smatter than they could normally be. Again, there are legal aspects associated with the use of such drug. Mostly, it is required that doctors prescribe such drugs to correct a given medical condition that contributes to mental problems such as poor concentration or decreased/ lost memory (Steinbock & John, 2008). The situation is even worse as depicted by arguments against the funding and promotional efforts towards research on cognitive enhancers. This happens due to the attributed ethical concerns. Given such a situation, the physician should not prescribe the drugs to Greta.   The use of enhancement technologies and drugs for the same case has been faced with numerous critiques. Other than cognitive enhancements, other forms of human enhancements such as cosmetic surgery, physical enhancement, and anabolic enhancements among others face various critiques. Some of these include the notion that it contributes to superficial practices and is less worth type of a moral behavior. Human enhancement is also criticized on the ground that it undermines the gifted aspect of human life. Again, some procedure could lead to certain defects, leading to lawful implications espcially in the case where phisicains are have to report on some procedure before conducting them (Steinbock & John, 2008, pg.283 ). Besides, choices made on human enhancements are associated with significant burdens such as high costs as well as associated side effects. There are moral similarities and differences that exist between these forms of human enhancements. First, therapy enhancement dichotomy hardly maps on corresponding dichotomies contemporary medicines, which are contemporary the way medicine could be practiced in the future. This is usually the case for all human enhancements. Again, there is the case of associated health issues attributed to the side effects resulting from all therapy enhancements. This aspect creates some moral concerns because people would initiate the procedure despised the adverse side effects. Some of the side effects include deformities, health complications, and cancer or organ failure among other problems. Another issue that is general to human enhancements is the fact that it is difficult to understand any interventions that could reduced the probability of death or a disease during the procedures or even in the long run. Even the use of concepts like genetic enhancements is greatly criticized especially if the enhancements are initiated on healthy individuals. It is very important to note that most of the enhancement procedures and techniques are generated to correct or treat certain medical problems. Concepts like gene enhancement lead to the alteration of the human genetic composition, a concept that is morally wrong. This is morally wrong because of religious views and the conception that human life should remain a natural phenomenon. While Christianity such as the Catholic Church supports gene therapy, it conversely considers genetic enhancement as morally wrong (Goodman, 2010, pg.147). In all cases, the use of technology is required, but the main idea is based on correcting a medical condition. In all cases of human enhancements, there are the associated side effects, which affect almost everyone who tries the enhancement procedure. The society is on the other hand against human enhancement with arguments that people need to be satisfied with their immediate mental or physical abilities. Trying to be better in the society by modifying one’s abilities or physical abilities without any motives of correcting a given medical condition is always perceived negatively by the society. The major difference comes in the case whereby some forms of human enhancement such as brain enhancement are considered as good while others may be lead to significant legal actions such as the use of steroids in physical games such as in football and athletics. Good results caused by the use cognitive enhancers are in contrary seen as ethical and morally acceptable in many cases. The moral argument that cognitive enhancements should not be used by healthy individuals clarifies this case and the fact that the physician should not prescribe the drug to Greta. Besides, this should be considered as drug abuse, which is also an ethical issue in this case (Goodman, 2010, pg.147). Cognitive enhancers are basically used by people suffering from behavioral disorders or psychological problems. The use of cognitive enhancements is basically a necessity of the non-healthy individuals, mainly to enhance alert and concentration. Greta does not need to correct any health condition and therefore it would be unethical to use such drugs. She would only gain unfair advantages over the rest of candidates sitting for the same exam. In the case of the physician, it would be against the work ethics to prescribe drugs for the wrong purpose. Such prescription would be attributed to prescription drug abuse. Typically, it is always required that physicians should hardly deceive or even withhold information concerning medical procedures from their patients even when they have an impression that it is the interest of the patient to get such prescription. By prescribing the drugs to Greta, the doctor would have broken this medical ethics. Some inherently wrong forms of enhancements are seen in the worries that human enhancements could create undesirable demands to enhance. This comes in when it could become impossible to compete for jobs especially given that everybody was mentally enhanced to compete in exams, tests, and interviews or even in other cases requiring enhancement. Again, competition in physical activities would demand that every participant is strength-enhanced. Physical enhancements would also make it difficult for some people to compete for spouses. Answer to Question 2 All medical procedures are meant to save lives or increase the chances of living a healthy and longer life than doing without the procedure. The case of the Merriks involves the same perspective and objective. Both Mr. and Mrs. Merrik are faced with a difficult situation whereby they have to choose between two procedures in order to ensure that their children would be free of hereditary non-polyposis colon cancer. They have to choose between pre-implantation genetic diagnosis of the health problem and prenatal diagnosis of the same medical issue. The PGD would involve genetic profiling of their embryo prior to implantation. The main advantage of the use of PGD with respect to their case is that they would avoid selective pregnancy termination especially after their fetus is diagnosed with the cancer problem later. This method would make it likely that their baby would be free of the hereditary nonpolyposis colon cancer (HNPCC). Conversely, there are several ethical associated with PGD. According to Kantian ethics, only the intrinsically good things are considered a good will. This view implies that a given action can only be considered as good given that its maxim. The main principle in this case is duty to the law of morally. The moral law is categorically imperative and acts on all people. From their case, the method would be too expensive for the Merriks (Fadare, 2009, 28). The trial of the medical procedure would cost them a lot of resources despite the low probability of finding and success in its application. Like the application of the method t for traits like gender, intelligence, and height, moral, social, and perhaps legal issues could arise. Basically, from a moral perspective, every conception should yield to a child who has the right to live his/her own life. However, the method is legally used in detecting genetic disorders. Typically, many religions such as the Catholic Church are always against the application of PGD. In this case, it is believed that individuals should hardly interfere with the process of conception at any given time. The society also believes that all life needs to be respected immediately after the process of conception takes place. People holding this perspective hold that, an embryo ought to be treated in a similar way as a human being, which implies that using PGD only lead to the death of the undesired embryos. In the case of this happening, it would be taken to the fault of the Merriks since it is based on their own decision (Steinbock & John, 2008, pg.95). Compared with the prenatal diagnosis or testing, the PGD seems to be a bit more risk given the few chances of survival for all tested embryos. The prenatal diagnosis tests are usually safe besides having the possibility of being performed early in Mrs. Merrik’s pregnancy. In this case, the associated features would result to informed consent making it difficult, that testing and selective abortions would be normalized. According to the utilitarianism moral theory, an action is right only if it conforms to utility principles. To the couple, this action would be moral but to humanity, it is morally wrong. To the child, it could generate other complication while they are trying to avoid the case of the cancer problem. A major ethical problem in this case could be the child’s loss of autonomy, which should be considered during the procedure. Like it is mostly the case with many parents in the case of other medical conditions, the Merriks have a better reason than just trying to save their family (Steinbock & John, 2008, pg.94). Their main concern is to have a safe child given the severity of the health condition that they are trying to avoid. The couple would develop a trend towards the acceptance of tests on minor abnormalities besides the main medical condition. The main moral concern in the application of this method is its linkage with the feature of being easy, safe, and timely to genomic technologies, which allow for a broader range of abnormalities. The initiation of abortions in the attempt to get a perfect child, who is free of the hereditary medical condition, would always be considered immoral. Abortion is considered illegal and besides, some of the safe fetus may be subjected to complication that could lead to unplanned abortions. Accurate information would thus be important to facilitate the initiation of realistic goals (Steinbock & John, 2008, pg.94). It would even be considered to be immoral given that a fetus is fully developed, and would very likely experience pain during the abortion process. Furthermore, given that prenatal testing includes the case of later-onset diseases, the right of not knowing their children’s future would be another issue. The issue in this case would be a case whereby a non-infected fetus may be affected by the testing and be aborted, while it could have developed to an important individual in the world. The main controversy however is generated by the moral concept behind selective abortion. Conversely, the couple should understand that the moral status of a fetus increases progressively as it develops. It would thus be necessary to terminate a life when its moral status is still low. This argument could however imply that PGD is better than the prenatal diagnosis in terms of the moral aspects of their choices (Fadare, 2009, pg.28). In conclusion, prenatal diagnosis is accepted widely accepted an aspect that could strengthen the Merriks in choosing the procedure as their best option. This would be based on the possibility of generalizing their problem and relating it to other cases such as sickle cell anemia or even Down’s syndrome. There case is however different especially given that Mr. Merrik is now 38 and strong although his father died at a younger age from HNPCC. This means that even if their child would be diagnosed with the health condition, he or she can live even a longer life than their parents. Based on situations facing the two options, prenatal diagnosis stands out to be the better option of the two options. Other than the ethical perception about the evils associated with abortion, it is the safest method, which could ensure that their children are purely free from HNPCC. I would therefore advice them to choose the prenatal diagnosis to ensures that their children are safe from HNPCC such that they can a live better and healthier life. There decision would also ensure that their future generation would not portray any chances of the medical condition. Bibliography Fadare, J. O., 2009. SOME ETHICAL ISSUES IN THE PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS OF SICKLE CELL ANAEMIA. Annals of Ibadan Postgraduate Medicine, 7(2), pp. 26-28. Goodman, R., 2010. Cognitive Enhancement, Cheating, and Accomplishment. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, 20(2), pp. 146-151. Steinbock, B. & John, A., 2008. Ethical issues in modern medicine. London: s.n. Read More