Social Impact of Scientific Developments in the Application of Fertility - Essay Example

? Social Impact of Scientific Developments in the Application of Fertility With the current advancements in technology, human beings have created numerous options to select from in attaining the characteristics they would desire in their babies. There are exceptional skills of determining the specific features to include in a baby an individual is yet to deliver as well as the characteristics to eliminate before delivery. Congratulations to the current intelligent man full of innovations. However, such endeavors have proved detrimental to morals in the social perspectives. Indeed, these indulgences attribute to numerous questions and precisely an individual might be prompted to inquest on the eventual intention of “human” (Holmes 1994) In this piece, there will be evaluation of the social implications of scientific advancements in the application of fertility. Again it would be very significant to understand that the clash between scientific discoveries and the accepted cord of conducts is an exclusively vast issue and only one, two or few can be exhausted at a single instance. Introduction In practical scenarios, individuals harbor and have even asked infinite number of questions concerning the ethical issues biased to scientific and medical practices. A significant number of such questions tend to inquire on specific issues as the extent to which the people can be permitted to employ selection technologies in determining the traits of their offspring and in case of any moral wrong associated with this act. The considerations for wrong or right in this case depends on the violations of the ethical standards set in every aspect in the world by an act executed by the individuals with different intentions to achieve (Glover 2010). Remember the known facets of the society to be liable for the determination of standards regarded as norms are religion, culture and political stipulations in given societies. Therefore, obtaining the answer to the inquest above would signify a crucial advancement towards achieving a point of agreement between scientific provisions on determination of human nature and the moral norms advocated for in the society. The options of choosing or eliminating features in children invoke a critical concern in the ethical considerations and autonomy as well. It is not right to deny a human being any right that is necessary for welfare determination. By selecting as well as deselecting particular traits amongst individuals and the unborn in this case is not right since it restrains the variability necessary in every society (Holmes 1994). According to elementary psychology of human, there is a realization that many people would opt for good things, and this is a common factor. Hence, there is likelihood that every parent would go for superior characteristics, consequentially, no one would go for the characteristics always regarded as inferior and that are only provided by nature and by chance. In a broader perspective, this indicates that some characteristics that are present in the society currently will lack after sometimes. This is a worst situation to any society because there will be gaps that are always filled by such characters and the practice is adverse in this case. People have cherished the selective means of reproduction for the purposes of luxury and exposition of power or wealth. An understanding should prevail that the act is unethical since it compromises the conformations of nature (Wilkinson 2010). There are instances that are perceived to merit selective reproduction. Human kind has to receive favour when considering selective reproduction. Individuals have different genetic formations and some of which are detrimental to their offsprings (Revelli & Tur-Kaspa 2003). Precisely, there are cases of presence of lethal genes and other genes that might be responsible for severe traits such as erythroblastic fetalis and those causing sickle cell anemia (Revelli & Tur-Kaspa 2003). In case of proper diagnosis revealing the probability of occurrence of such genes in individuals, it would be apt to selectively remove them. Moreover, these traits are likely to cause prolonged suffering in children and may eventually result into death. There should be a comprehensive screening out for disease and disability. Detection of diseases especially genetic related diseases would be imperative before birth because at that instance an effective remedy can be performed to avoid further effects of the condition. This is considered ethical because it attributes to delivery of a healthy offspring by the parents. In case an individual can argue that this activity is an objectionable way of eugenics then the person is likely to be wrong (Holmes 1994). There is no need of performing a screening out process that is not inclusive since this is likely to exclude some elements of diagnostic processes that are likely to leave some conditions undetected. Many occasions of partial treatments to impending conditions in infants have been fatal since the treatment to one effect of a particular area might omit and or strengthen the undetected condition hence improving its resiliency to treatments and improving its danger factor (Glover 2010). There are frequent discoveries and modifications of previous finding in technology and this is essential concerning the industrious nature of the scientists. There are encroachment of these feelings to human beings modifications and improvement of quality. Nonetheless, the science community should consider the human aspect and respect the nature of human beings as they are. Human beings are special organisms whose nature should be subjected least to technological alterations even though there are a good proportion of ordinary people as well as scientists suggesting that the human nature should be altered for the creation of a more superior human being. Logically, this feeling is not right since kit found compromise ethical thresholds of human beings. According to (Woodruff & Zoloth 2010), human belongs have special features that the scientists have not understood and will never identify in any time sooner. Being that the scientists have been successful in performing some incredible operations in modification of human genes as well as dictating the functioning of the body they have to understand that they can never merit the creator still. This implies that there might be possibility of spontaneous mutations that might live to a disastrous form of human being that the scientists will face extreme hurdles to contain (Wilkinson 2010). The world has existed for several centuries and millennia accompanied by evolution of organisms through discoveries and eventually to the contemporary advancements. In health care scenario, there have been executions of transplants of organs and transfusion of blood among individuals in different occasions. In each scenario there has been a demand for compatibility in blood grouping and gene conformations and prompting for the use of relative blood, tissues and organs. However it is not a priority that individual genes and traits be determined in the pre birth stages to match this functionality (Revelli & Tur-Kaspa 2003). It is therefore not ethical to select and determine individuals’ traits to cater for the life saving tissue fort a living relative. Again people should live optimistic lives with little regards to such situations leading to transplants of tissues and organs and treat the demands for such operations as emergencies because if such selections are made in the unborn and throughout the life, no relative experience such transplants the activity becomes irrelevant. Moreover, this instance can invoke numerous issues being led by the question of whether a human being can be created with sole purposes of utilization as “raw materials.” Therefore, this exposes the scientific intentions of misusing human beings, a feature that conflicts with the norms (Woodruff & Zoloth 2010). Scientists have claimed that the selection targets two purposes and for which both are beneficial. The first application of selection is avoidance of disease whilst the second purpose being production of enhanced offspring. The latter has more moral issues since it depicts violations of ethical norms. In the case of production of an enhanced being, it indicates that there are additions of features or elimination of characters or both. The ethics governing human beings demand that there should be no alterations of elements embryology to create altered being unless there is a special case of impending danger associated with birth and the welfare of the child especially to the parent on birth (Wilkinson 2010). For in the case of deaf parents desiring a deaf offspring should also understand that deaf conditions are regarded as malfunction of the body system. However deafness has little to do with genetics and the associated heredity. So, the parents opting for reproduction selection to create a deaf child are not ethical in sense. The unborn has the right to good health and any malfunctioning of any part of the body should not be intentional and by creating a deaf individual one with any condition decisively should not be tolerated (Woodruff & Zoloth 2010). Conclusion According to the provisions of this investigation, it is explicit that scientific advancements in biotechnology and medical profession at large typically attributes to social conflicts due to their implications. The ethical perspective opposes the technological infringements into human genome with postulated reasons most of which have been confirmed. There seems to be misunderstanding of the ethical conceptions by the scientists in their desire to express might in the faculty because they prefer doing it at the expense of ethical demands and erosion of human dignity. Bibliography Woodruff, T & Zoloth, L (2010). Oncofertility: Ethical, Legal, Social and Medical Perspectives: Cancer Treatment and Research. Berlin: Springer Revelli A & Tur-Kaspa I (2003). Biotechnology of human reproduction. New York: Parthenon Publishing Group Holmes, H. B. (1994). Issues in reproductive technology. New York, New York University Press. Wilkinson S (May 2010). See also Choosing Tomorrow's Children. London: Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: Glover J (September 2010) Choosing Children. Oxford. London: Published to Oxford Scholarship Online Read More