Abortions as a Result of Identified Genetic Abnormalities - Essay Example

RUNNING HEAD: Ethics Ethics: Abortions as a Result of Identified Genetic Abnormalities BY YOU YOUR ACADEMIC ORGANIZATION HERE YOUR HERE HERE Abstract Prenatal testing for a variety of fetal abnormalities, such as genetic illnesses or even perceived, future personality defects, allows for women to consider abortion based on prenatal testing results. This prenatal diagnostic system tests the forming fetus for genetic imperfections and then, using counselors or physicians, offers options for handling identified genetic diseases or trends. This paper describes the ethics of this controversial abortion practice. Ethics: Abortions as a Result of Identified Genetic Abnormalities Introduction In today’s technologically-sophisticated and modern society, it is becoming rather standard clinical practice for pregnant women to pursue prenatal diagnosis to determine whether a developing fetus will maintain future genetic abnormalities. One common practice includes amniocentesis which is used to determine whether a child will maintain chromosomal problems such as Down Syndrome. Unfortunately, this testing procedure does not identify these genetic abnormalities until the 16th week of pregnancy, long after the child is already well-formed (Ring-Cassidy and Gentles, 2003). A more modern diagnosis process, the Chorionic Villi Sampling method (CVS) occurs during the first trimester however the procedure has been known to cause limb defects (arms and leg) to healthy children (Ring-Cassidy and Gentles). There does not appear to be a viable prenatal testing system which can accurately predict genetic characteristics, plus the long-term damage to both the mother and the child creates a new ethical dilemma. Deemed bioethics, it is the study of whether prenatal, genetic results are sound enough justification for aborting the fetus. This paper describes the ethics behind this controversial abortion practice. The Ethical Debate Medical screening technology has not yet advanced to where physicians and geneticists can concretely identify future genetic deficiencies in developing fetuses. In a situation where a pregnant woman is relying on prenatal testing results to determine whether to carry a child to full-term, the current stage of medical research simply provides mothers with no viable options other than to prepare for the eventuality of raising a genetically-deficient child or abort the fetus immediately. Kuhse (1998) clearly offers that prenatal diagnostics is wrong at its very foundation, where abortion becomes the only viable alternative to carrying the child full-term. The author suggests that good-spirited attempts to locate genetic defects such as Huntington’s disease or cystic fibrosis will ultimately lead to a social shift where less-critical fetus issues are assessed such as having a club foot, a harelip, left-handedness or even skin color (Kuhse). From this bioethics perspective, prenatal examinations and the decision to abort based on testing data maintains the potential to change social attitudes where parents begin scrutinizing fetuses and simply aborting them for minor genetic defects which would not necessarily impact the child negatively into adulthood. This likely stands as a warning that with the advent of new and innovative genetic testing technologies there will likely be irresponsible individuals who do not consider the well-being of the fetus over their own parental expectations. The effect on the mother’s health, after the abortion due to the discovery of genetic abnormalities, can be grave and long-lasting. Women (or couples) who have made the decision to terminate the fetus often experience intense grief and anxiety over the decision in similar proportion to the levels of grief generally experienced from the death of a close family member (Ring-Cassidy and Gentles). This lasting grief seems to point toward women not fully understanding the psychological impact of mid-term abortions due to genetic abnormalities. The bioethics argument might then offer that pregnant women must be provided the necessary counseling prior to making the decision to terminate the pregnancy for fear of long-term, lingering emotional effects on the woman or the couple. Interestingly, a 1992 court case served as the precedent for limiting the rights of the father in the event of abortion due to prenatal screening results, in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey. This legal precedent has created the bioethical argument as to whether the father should be given equal decision-making rights, who is likely to be impacted emotionally by the decision to abort a genetically-deficient fetus. The aforementioned case describes a legal statute entitled the Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act of 1982 which demands that a married woman must notify her husband, in writing, of her decision to abort the fetus. This case determined that this stipulation proved to be an “undue burden” and was therefore invalidated (Cornell University, 2004: 505), thus further curtailing the rights of the father. Once the mother has determined that the child’s perceived genetic deficiencies justify a swift abortion, bioethics might argue that the husband is just as crucial in making the final decision as the mother. The court precedent would now rely on the mother being emotionally-stable and exhibit certain levels of moral maturity prior to making a decision. In the hypothetical event where a pregnant woman becomes over-anxious regarding prenatal genetic predictions about the fetus, without the father’s consent this child could be aborted even if the father would be willing to raise the child after birth. Pro-life advocates argue that life actually starts at the time of fertilization and not at conception (Duke University, 2002). This creates a moral argument in which mid-term abortions, from the pro-life perspective, not only violates the rights of the fetus but cannot be justified by inconclusive, prenatal evidence. Non-lethal birth defects identified through preliminary genetic testing can often be the catalyst for a swift, mid-term abortion, giving Pro-life activists even more fuel for the proverbial fire in arguing that these abortions are in direct opposition to securing the moral rights of the fetus. Conclusion There are clearly a wide variety of different opinions which touch on the bioethics of mid-term fetal abortions in the event of identified genetic deficiencies. These arguments include securing the rights of the father, concerns over the long-term health of the mother or couple after abortion has been concluded, and the moral rights of the child based on speculative prenatal genetic assessment. However, there is another argument not discussed in the research which involves behavioral genetic testing. Cragun, Woltanski, Myers and Cragun (2002) offer that mothers are also using prenatal genetic testing to determine behavioral traits such as depression, Alzheimer’s disease, Attention-Deficit, alcoholism or homosexuality. None of these behavioral defects are life-threatening and it is argued that these characteristics are largely reliant on environmental factors (such as upbringing and household values), making it impossible for prenatal testing to concretely identify future problems in behavior based on genetic speculation. The largest ethical debate on this controversial topic involves drawing the proverbial line to where quality medical research is being conducted and when the parents are exhibiting reckless or irresponsible behavior in rushing to judgment about a mid-term abortion based on these factors. The advance of prenatal genetic testing is giving society the opportunity to assess their developing fetuses for any variety of genetic factors, such as the mother’s potential desire to have a child with high cognitive abilities. Future prenatal genetic research might allow parents to dismiss a child who they believe will have an average I.Q. and continue to abort until they achieve this goal. The parent may consider this to be a genetic weakness, making the child undesirable. The most important moral argument is that prenatal genetic assessment is not an exact science, therefore abortion based on perception and prediction is unethical and seriously erodes the rights of the developing fetus. Bibliography Ring-Cassidy, E. and Gentles, I. (2003). Women’s Health after Abortion: The Medical and Psychological Evidence, 2nd ed. de Veber Institute. Retrieved December 12, 2008 from http://www.deveber.org/text/chapters/Chap12.pdf In this work, the authors describe the various prenatal, genetic testing procedures available. Additionally, the pros and cons of each medical practice is discussed. The long-term psychological impact on the mother is also identified, touching on issues of bioethics and the rights of the mother and others involved in the decision to abort based on medical evidence. Kuhse, Helga. (1998). A Companion to Bioethics, Malden, Massachussets, USA Blackwell Publishers. Kuhse describes the dangers of using prenatal genetic diagnostics to determine whether the child is fit to carry full-term. The author argues that negative social changes, such as deciding that a future handicapped person (the tested fetus) has no value and should therefore be aborted. This work paves a new argument to the bioethics debate. Cornell University. (2004). “Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey (91-744)”. Supreme Court Collection. Retrieved December 12, 2008 from http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/91-744.ZS.html This is an actual court case briefing regarding the limitations of father rights which were granted by this precedent case. The case describes the plaintiffs, defendants and the court’s ruling, based on existing court precedents. Roberts, Jason C. (2002). “Customizing Conception: A Survey of Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis and the Resulting Social, Ethical, and Legal Dilemmas”. Duke University. Retrieved December 13, 2008 from http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/dltr/articles/ pdf/2002DLTR0012.pdf. This work delivered by a student geneticist at Duke University indicates the dangers of allowing prenatal genetic testing to advance into social hysteria and further erode the rights of the developing fetus. The author argues about the linkage between behavioral genetics and testing for genetic, life-altering characteristics and how society can confuse the two concepts and perform abortions based on speculative, unjustifiable genetic testing data. Cragun, R., Woltanski, A., Myers, M. and Cragun, D. (2002). “Genetic Counselors and Cognitive Dissonance: How Genetic Counselors Address Holding Different Personal and Professional Attitudes toward Abortion”. University of Tampa. Retrieved December 12, 2008 from http://www.pacificinstitute.net/challenging AssumptionsConference/documents/CragunBinder.pdf. This article describes the role of the counselor in helping pregnant women determine the best course of action in the event of negative genetic testing results. The work describes the different counselor perspectives on the morality of abortion based on genetic testing, including various religious viewpoints and the Pro-life argument. This work tends to reinforce the importance of quality counseling, with a non-biased perspective, in the field of prenatal genetic counseling. Read More