Designer Babies - Research Paper Example

?Mariam AlQatami EXP 202-003 Klein Preliminary Outline: Designer Babies Introduction Thesis: Is it ethical for a parent to choose to have adesigner baby? It is only ethical for a parent to choose to have a designer baby in limited circumstances that are health-related. It is therefore unethical for a parent to choose to have a designer baby if it is not related to health. There are some instances where parents choose to have a designer baby for cosmetic reasons and this should be discouraged since it interferes with nature and God’s creation. Therefore, Parents should only modify their children's genes if it interferes with their health, but not for cosmetic reasons (Bliss, 02). Position: Parents should be allowed to modify their unborn child’s genes only for health reasons, and not cosmetic reasons. There are a number of parents who are not able to give birth to children. This is because it is proven scientifically that the baby will have a genetic disease and the baby will die when they are still young or in some instances the baby might even die before they are born. Parents always wish for the best when it comes to their baby and thus, they should be allowed to modify their unborn babies but only for health reasons. Recent research has shown that by use of various genetic techniques, parents can be assisted in preventing certain genetic diseases. Thus, these genetic techniques save the baby from undue suffering and death as well as assist in reducing emotional strain that is associated in bringing up an ill baby and also reduces medical costs significantly. This will evidently lead to happier parents and their babies. Further research done recently has proven that there a number of parents who are giving birth to spare part children in few cases whereby if one baby suffers from a serious blood disease, the parents use IVF (In Vitro Fertilization) in selecting embryos in order to give birth to another baby who acts as a tailor-made, future bone marrow or blood donor. Such cases have shown that the baby will be born healthy and will assist the older baby stay well by being a donor (Bliss, 04). Where do we stop with enhancing and engineering unborn children? In instances like the spare part babies, it is unethical since doctors and parents are creating babies who act as an organ-donating factory and this should be discouraged at all cost. It is paramount to note that the fundamental issue of giving birth should be left to Mother Nature and when the spare part baby eventually grows up, they will be depressed once they discover that they born with the sole purpose of being an organ or blood donor. The principle behind giving birth is to cherish and love the baby for what they are and not for what they can do for others (Naff, 08). Enhancing and engineering unborn children should strictly be done for health purposes only and not for cosmetic or spare part reasons. There is also a possibility of widening the already devastating imbalance between the poor and the rich since genetic techniques are extremely expensive and therefore only the rich can afford. This effectively means that only the rich will be able to eradicate genetic diseases in their families whereas the poor continue wallowing in the sea of genetic diseases (Murray and Dave Holmes, 11). The possibility of breeding a super-human race is indeed a reality since these designer babies will look down on those babies without genetic enhancements. Examples in reality are those people who are born with various disabilities and they are never comfortable when in the company of a normal person. They feel inferior and they also face intolerance. Thus, this discrimination against various people who are born with disabilities will evidently increase (Murray and Dave Holmes, 14). There is also the likelihood of parents being carried away in correcting perfectly healthy babies. This is possible since parents will always look for any opportunity to eliminate embryos since they have a gene for a particular disease and a dangerous trend will start whereby parents will pick babies for their psychological or physical traits (Naff, 38). What are Designer Babies? Designer babies refer to those babies whose genetic makeup has been engineered through artificial screening and chosen by scientists through a process known as genetic engineering. It is worth noting that the term designer baby was in reality not coined by the scientists but by the journalists. Therefore, a designer baby is that baby who has undergone the genetic engineering process whereby their genetic makeup was artificially selected. This selection is done through genetic engineering together with IVF (In Vitro Fertilization) in order to ensure the absence or presence of certain characteristics or genes. Thus, a designer baby is genetically engineered baby. The process of genetic engineering can be used to modify genes of an unborn child for various reasons which include health reasons which can remove a harmful gene, for cosmetic reasons such as sex selection and changing the eye/hair color. Other reasons include enhancing intelligence and removing one of the five senses (Bliss, 01). A number of milestones in genetics have led to this notion of designer babies whereby doctors and parents are effectively able to screen genetically the embryos in order to check for any possible genetic disorder. The IVF (In Vitro Fertilization) technique normally entails the fertilization of an egg by the sperm outside the mother’s body and it is done usually in test tubes. This IVF technique makes it possible for doctors to effectively screen the embryos and this has led to genetic screening which makes it possible to eradicate genes linked with various genetic defects as well as terminal illnesses (Murray and Dave Holmes, 19). The PGD or Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis is a revolutionary technique that is used together with tissue typing whereby it is used for screening embryos to check for any genetic disease. This process ensures that only disease-free embryos are eventually implanted into the womb of the mother. However, this process not only screens hereditary and genetic disorders but the process is also used for cosmetic reasons. The technique can be used by the parents to choose the skin, eye, color of the baby’s hair and the gender. In addition, the technique can be used in choosing various other physical traits which include the height, beauty, intelligence, and athletic ability, eradication of mental illness and elimination of obesity in a baby. It is paramount to note that this technique is solely available to parents seeking IVF. It is worth noting that close to 25,000 babies are born through IVF annually in the United States (Naff, 94). Arguments There are a number of arguments that have been fronted in regard to the designer babies and there is a group of people who believe that designer babies can actually revolutionize life way beyond a normal person’s imagination. There is also a school of thought that believes that the revolutionizing technique will lead to unimaginable harm to the future of mankind (Murray and Dave Holmes, 52). Arguments for Designer Babies One of the notable arguments for designer babies states that parents who are not able to have children since they were born with fatal genetic diseases would now have the golden opportunity to start a family. Through genetic engineering, the baby’s genetic makeup will be changed in order to ensure that the baby is born without any genetic diseases. Thus, parent’s prayers will have been effectively answered and this gives them the chance to give birth to a healthy child (Murray and Dave Holmes, 74). Majority of the supporters of designer babies state that PGD and IVF are efficiently utilized for the benefit of the baby. Most of the time, many parents mould their babies into what they perceive as best practices in order to make them successful and therefore, this gives the parents the chance to mould the baby prior to their birth. These parents assert that what they are doing is what the baby would want also. According to the parents, each baby would want to be better looking, healthier and smart. They are thus assisting the baby to start life on a successful beginning (Bliss, 89). The effective use of reproductive technology ensures that the baby does not undergo undue suffering, reduces the overall medical costs and reduces emotional strain that is associated with taking care of a sick baby. The humongous advantage of recent reproductive technology also ensures that the hassle of taking care of a sick baby is eliminated as well as the time consumed is eradicated. There will be no more worry, no more sitters and no more specialized medical attention. The price of PGD and IVF will eventually pay off in regard to the emotional strain and overall costs that are experienced in the cause of raising an ill child (Murray and Dave Holmes, 112). The strongest and greatest argument for the use of designer babies states that the technique prevents certain genetic diseases. Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD) can effectively be used to screen nearly a dozen of the most threatening genetic diseases which include Tay Sachs, sickle cell disease, cystic fibrosis, a number of familiar cancers, hemophilia, and early onset Alzheimer’s. Other genetic diseases that can be screened are muscular dystrophy, Fanconi’s anemia and neurofibromatosis. Recent research has also shown that further testing of the human genome will eliminate close to all genetic diseases through the use of reproductive genetic techniques. It is therefore evident that future advanced medical technologies will in future cure and prevent genetic diseases (Bliss, 103). Lastly, the technology of designer babies could be used in making a second baby in order to act as a future bone marrow and blood donor for an earlier baby. Thus, the technique will ensure that the second baby is born healthy and can therefore prevent the older baby from getting sick. This method was used in August 29, 2000 when Adam Nash was born as a designer baby. Nash was purposely created to be free from the Fanconi’s anaemia gene which had initially infected Molly his sister. Fanconi’s anaemia is an atypical genetic disorder which prevents bone marrow from being present in the body. An embryo that was free from Fanconi’s anemia was selected out of 30 embryos. After Nash was born, his umbilical cords’ blood cells were transplanted into Molly’s body and she was saved from the disease. Thus, his sister only required a successful bone marrow transplant in order to survive and chances of a transplant that is successful increase more when the donor is especially a donor (Naff, 116). Arguments against Designer Babies From Nash’s case, critics of this technique reason that since Nash was born to help his sister, then he will eventually feel like he was only born to assist her. In other words, parents and doctors are creating babies to act as an organ-donating factory. The critics further claim that the baby is treated like a commodity and not as a cherished and loved member of the family. Others claim that the use of this technology in order to prevent disability fully undermines the fundamental rights of the disabled people and it also encourages selfish and eugenic tendencies in parents as well as violating the natural laws which should be respected (Kelly, 14). The argument about the imbalances between the poor and the rich is also associated with the argument against designer babies. In accordance to Bailey in his article titled “Hooray for Designer Babies”, he elaborately describes the advance reproductive technologies cost whereby he states that IVF will cost a couple nearly $7,500 since the lab and medical staff will have to perform the procedure. He further states that the cost of Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis will be an additional $2,500 (Bailey, par. 4). The possibility of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer is real and therefore this technique will only be for the rich since the poor cannot afford. Thus, parents who can afford these huge costs will ensure that they give birth to babies who are genetically enhanced in order to give them an edge over the others in terms of success. The fear of a breed of super human beings who will look down upon the normal people is a reality and therefore this will present a bad precedent and encourage discrimination (Bailey - “Hooray for Designer Babies”). From the religious view, the technology for designer babies effectively removes the uniqueness and specialness in a person. Each person has his or her own uniqueness and they are special since no one is alike and therefore each person has his/her limits and thus if these elements are removed, then human beings will be nothing (Merino, 75). The other fear is the fear of this technology being misused by people with perverse reasons. A good example can be seen from the deaf lesbian couple of Candy McCullough and Sharon Duchesneau who deliberately and unashamed created a deaf child. According to this couple, deafness is not a disability but rather a uniqueness that defines a cultural identity and the couple thus wanted a deaf baby with whom they could communicate easier in their own language (Savulescu, 2). It is thus for this reason that various people would want to create designer babies based on their perverse manifestation (Savulescu, 3). There has also being a huge outcry from experts who claim the issue of sex selection in this reproductive technique would lead to a future crisis especially when considering that the Indian and Chinese societies value boys more highly than the girls. This could lead to a societal imbalance if not checked since one gender will be more than the other and thus leading to natural law issues (Murray and Dave Holmes, 183). Strictly For Medical Purposes Only The main fact is that reproductive genetic technology will prevent genetic diseases and this will save lives as well as produce healthier babies. The reproductive genetic technology should strictly be used for health issues only and issues such as the technology being used for cosmetic purposes should be banned (Naff, 127). This technology should be regulated and parents should be allowed to effectively use this technology to cure and prevent diseases for their babies since it is not unethical to prevent suffering as well as assist the baby to live healthier and longer lives. The money spent for the procedure will be compensated very well as compared to the medical costs that a sick baby would use combined by the emotional strain associated (Bliss, 142). Parents should be able to create a second child that will assist the older sibling from getting ill. Thus, parents should use this technology to cure and prevent diseases for their babies. The baby will be treated as a loved member of the family and not as a commodity. In fact the baby will have saved the life of its sibling which is very noble (Kelly, 24). Other health reasons that should be a good excuse for having a designer baby includes the gene therapy which can be performed on the IVF embryos of women in danger of passing on mitochondrial disease to their babies, which could be a potential severe and fatal metabolic disorder. Genes that carry breast or colon cancer may be eliminated. This is a benefit. However, many people are against this since it may cause another genetic disease, and that unforeseen future side effects are yet unknown. Selecting the sex of the baby, cosmetic/enhancing intelligence reasons are not valid excuses for having a designer baby (Naff, 181). Potential Future Research concerning Designer Babies In 2006, it was announced that Edignburgh University researchers had found a gene linked to the development of psychotic symptoms. This presents a milestone in this technology since the baby can be cured and prevented from this disease (Merino, 21). International researchers have identified and uncovered a risk gene that is associated with schizophrenia which includes a potentially causative mutation. These researchers used independent replications and the genome-wide association data-mining techniques. Thus all researches portray that many more diseases will be cured and prevented by these reproductive technologies and baby’s lives will be saved (Winkler, 97). Conclusion Life is a gift and people should respect the natural laws which create the uniqueness and specialty in each and everyone. However, if this technology is regulated for health purposes only, then it will be beneficial to the babies and their parents since a lot of diseases will be cured and prevented. Technology, science, and the medical field should never be allowed to “play God” and determine unnecessary traits. However, many people are against this technology since they think that it may cause another genetic disease and that unforeseen future side effects are yet to be known. Selecting the sex of the baby and cosmetic/enhancing intelligence reasons are not valid excuses for having a designer baby. The idea of super babies in order to get rid of stupidity should not be entered. The implications of selecting the sex of baby is detrimental especially in countries like India and China where there is evidence of an ever-growing Chinese clients who demand for a boy and studies shows that 98% of them demand for a boy. Other reasons which include the removal one of the 5 senses is not a valid excuse for having a designer baby. This is why deaf parents have argued for their right to have a deaf child and this is unacceptable since what would be the reason of causing a disability on an unborn child who might be born perfectly healthy. Such parents should not be allowed to exercise this right since it does not belong to them (Naff, 168). Works Citied Bailey, Ronald. “Hooray for Designer Babies!” Reason Online 6 Mar. 2002. Retrieved on 06 April. 2013 from < http://www.reason.com/rb/rb030602.shtml > Bliss, John. Designer Babies. New York: Raintree. 2012. Print. Kelly, Evelyn B. Gene Therapy. Westport, Conn: Greenwood Press, 2007. Print. Merino, Noe?l. Human Genetics. Detroit, MI: Greenhaven Press, 2010. Print. Murray, Stuart J, and Dave Holmes. Critical Interventions in the Ethics of Healthcare: Challenging the Principle of Autonomy in Bioethics. Farnham, England: Ashgate, 2009. Print. Naff, Clay F. Designer Babies. , 2013. Print. Naff, Clay F. Reproductive Technology. Farmington Hills, MI: Greenhaven Press/Thomson Gale, 2006. Print. Savulescu, Julian. “Debating Matters. Deaf Lesbians, ‘designer disability,’ and the future of medicine.” British Medical Journal. 325 (2002): 771-773. InfoTrac Custom Newpapers. Alma College Lib., Alma, MI. 20 Nov. 2005. Winkler, Kathleen. High-tech Babies: The Debate over Assisted Reproductive Technology. Berkeley Heights, NJ: Enslow Publishers, 2006. Print. Read More