Morality vs. In vitro fertilization - Essay Example

Morality vs. In vitro fertilization I agree with the ity’s decision because in vitro fertilization with the end goal of saving another person’s life is unethical and immoral. This issue is very much related to the use of embryonic stem cells in establishing cures and treatment for various diseases. In the same vein, I believe that the decision of the Authority is unethical because it is against the basic ethical principles of medicine, that of beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice. The beneficence principle is based on the act of doing what is best and what would benefit the patient (Dane and Finkbeiner, 2007).

Although the procedure may indeed benefit the ailing son, it would also bring harm and potential risks to the baby. The manipulation process which would be carried out on the embryo includes personhood qualities which may be lost or destroyed in the process of manipulation (Dane and Finkbeiner, 2007). Even if such harm or risk may not be actually proven in the medical or clinical context, religions and cultural dictates may declare such risks as significant. The scientific and medical way of assessing and declaring the presence of risks cannot be the sole basis for defining harm; “to do so also would lead to a lack of respect for other religious and cultural beliefs” (Dane and Finkbeiner, 2007, p. 5). In effect, although clinicians may rule out the risk which may be incurred from the procedure as minimal, such risks cannot be overlooked in favor of potential benefits.

The justice consideration is also crucial in this discussion. The principle of justice basically sets forth that all people must be given their due. The potential child in this case is being unjustly viewed already not as an individual person, but as a tool – a means to an end. Granting that he was chosen to live for such purpose, justice requires that he be given his due – that of living his life beyond the nefarious purposes of his parents (Hug, 2010). Moreover, medical risks which will form a major part of his life because of the procedures which he has to undergo for his sibling are major injustices.

These risks are not his due. With the above considerations, I therefore agree with the Authority’s decision on refusing the procedure. The final decisions for these cases must be that of the government. The medical procedures to be undertaken are not the usual procedures which are being implemented to treat injuries or illnesses. They are procedures which have a major impact on public interest. They impact on the future of medical practice and on the general ethical practice of medical professionals.

Allowing the decision to be made by the family without imposing some sort of government control opens the doors to more dangers and similar acts which would later lead to a highly unethical medical practice. This is part of the slippery slope argument which basically sets forth that as one act is allowed, other similar acts would also be allowed until there is no restriction at all in the actions of medical practitioners and society in general (Cole-Turner, 2008). Even when these procedures are paid for by private insurance, the decision must not belong to the individual or family.

They are matters of public interest and the implications of their application must be based on what is best for society. The principle of self-determination cannot apply in these instances because it violates public interest. The principle of self-determination is not absolute when matters of public interest are considered. The actions of the parents affect public interest because such decisions may be used to perpetuate other acts similar to stem cell research. The risks involved impact on the future of the medical practice with these procedures being widely applied without the application of legal and ethical boundaries (Hug, 2007).

The government must therefore maintain its authority over these procedures in order to ensure that these procedures are not given wide applications in the general medical practice. With government control, easier control measures for these procedures can be set forth and their impact on the general public can be minimized. Works Cited Cole-Turner, R. (2003). God and the embryo: religious voices on stem cells and cloning. Washington: Georgetown University Press Dane, F. & Finkbeiner, J. (2007).

Ethics of Stem-Cell Research: A Framework for Ethical Dialogue Regarding Sources of Conflict. Forum on Public Policy. Retrieved 30 June 2011 from http://forumonpublicpolicy.com/archivespring07/dane.pdf Hug, K. (2007). Translational Stem Cell Research: Issues Beyond the Debate on the Moral Status of the Human Embryo. New York: Springer