Designer Babies, Eugenics and the Concept of 3 Parent Child - Coursework Example

EUGENICS AND DESIGNER BABIES (Psychology and Ethics) of (affiliation) Introduction Human civilization has made tremendous progress over the centuries due to many new discoveries that made life easier, safer, and simpler. There are many examples of how scientific discoveries were used for the service of humanity and some of the advances are cumulative by nature (evolutionary) or drastic in their effects (revolutionary) which tend to be quite disruptive. One example was the iron plow which revolutionized agriculture; the plow before iron was soon discovered was made of bronze which was softer and cannot be used on hard or dry land as it will bend. An iron plow was stronger and iron ores were much more plentiful and easier to mine. This discovery vastly improved the lifestyles of ancient civilizations as food became plentiful by which people had secure food supplies and this in turn had made population increases possible. It changed the lifestyles of people from being hunter-gatherers (nomadic) to living in settlements (sedentary) as people learned to cultivate new crops and domesticate animals for food. There are many other discoveries and inventions which fostered human progress to the point it is now today; earlier advances included mastery of fire, invention of gunpowder, the use of the compass (for marine navigation), use of ink for printing, domestication of the horse for its varied uses in both transportation and as a war machine in fighting (cavalry), production of paper and the subsequent use of paper currency (instead of the bulky and heavy metal coins) to foster trade, pottery and porcelain, sericulture (raising silkworms for making silk) and many others. In all these instances, it can be said that these inventions and discoveries were in the main mostly of a morally-neutral nature. It is up to Man how to use these inventions and discoveries for his own benefit in practical applications of everyday life and to improve overall the human condition. Discussion The way people use any new technology is vastly different and the way new technology is perceived can be either positive or negative. A good example was invention of the telephone which critics saw as a threat to the way people used to communicate. There were so many objections to the invention of Alexander Graham Bell such as it will spread germs over the wire, people will soon lose their distinctive regional accents, wreck home life as people will now spend a lot of time talking on the telephone, and it will give the government a “listening box” in the homes of citizens and eavesdrop or spy on their conversations (Rosenzweig, 1999). Looking back at these criticisms today make these objections laughable and unfounded but people seriously believed these accusations on what a telephone can do to peoples lives. The advocates who welcomed the telephone had cited its many benefits such as bring a new kind of kinship among mankind, foster a closer community as distances are shortened, and will change a society so profoundly along lines of work, the type of work possible, social re-organization, and visions of utopia like alter concepts of national sovereignty, proliferation of new ideas, the re-birth of cities, change patterns of international trade, and even promote global peace (ibid.). Invention of the telephone caused panic among some people and euphoria among others and this had been the same reaction with regards to the splitting of the atom. Albert Einstein laid the theoretical framework to release the power of splitting the atom to generate electricity in the peaceful use of nuclear power but then his famous formula E = mc2 had also been used to create the atomic bomb with its tremendous destructive power. As we can see, any invention can either be good or bad depending on how it is used in practical applications and is morally neutral. This is the same case with many scientific advances and discoveries made through good research. These advances include many medical advances such as organ transplants, surrogate motherhood, and in-vitro fertilization (IVF) by which infertile couples can still hope for a child. People had initially made very strong objections to organ transplants as they think it is morally wrong to harvest an organ from a dead person which they considered as a desecration of the dead or even live organ donations where an organ is obtained from a still-living donor. Organ transplantation in its early stages raised criticisms but is now considered as perfectly normal. This shows how moral values of society change over time and make things acceptable. The same arguments had been raised with regards to eugenics. At one time, it was seen as the savior for humankind as it will allow for superior human beings to be reproduced to such an extent never previously possible. Eugenics literally means “good genes” from the word “eu” which means good and “genos” or the study of good genes to produce a superior human race. In the recent past, eugenics had a lot of famous believers and adherents as a sound scientific idea to improve the genetic quality of human populations by selective parenthood. Its original principles were laudable as who does not want a better human being with a higher intelligence? However, the ideas of eugenics were hijacked and twisted by the Nazis of old Germany under Hitler to eliminate certain races and ethnic groups they considered as inherently inferior. It led to some unethical and unsavory practices such as forced sterilization, euthanasia (mercy killing) of the insane and mentally retarded, and outright extermination of Jews, blacks, Slavs, etc. such that people were turned off because eugenics as actually practiced deviated from its stated objectives of improving the human race by scientific, ethical and fair means only. Scientific advances in the fields of medicine and biology always tend to create ethical issues because humans are involved. This issue is of paramount importance because Man in the search for answers to better health and longer life can play God at times and the question now is who will decide the fate of fellow human beings and what makes these people qualified to do so? The answers are not easy to come by and the debate is continuing and highly controversial. The ancient Romans practiced a crude form of bioethics by placing newborn babies out in the cold of the night and only babies who survived until the morning are allowed to live. These babies were considered fit and strong to be future Roman citizens and if a male, then a future centurion able to defend the Roman empire from its enemies. Other early civilizations and tribes also practiced this variant of natural selection to a certain extent and people had accepted this practice. Technological advances in the field of genetics has given birth to the new controversy of gender selection of a baby (Lemonick, 1999); this technique can be considered as an offshoot of of the eugenics of several generations earlier. Parents may have their own reasons for choosing a particular gender and parents who avail of this option should be respected as it is within their own rights when raising a child of their liking. Like all other new scientific techniques such as using organ transplants to prolong the life of a sick person, it is also being harshly criticized. Science should serve humanity and there is nothing wrong with using knowledge to aid couples have a baby with a gender they chose and this freedom of choice is part of the human rights of every individual. Science helped eliminate previously untreatable diseases like cholera, typhoid, dysentery, or tuberculosis and so there is nothing ethically wrong with choosing the` babys gender but then the question that follows is how far should science serve humanity? As of now, scientific knowledge obtained from genetics had been extended to other uses beyond merely choosing the babys gender and this is what makes the practice objectionable to some people who foresee some abuses if limits and regulations are not imposed by government. Some of the ways by which genetics had been applied are in the area of personal attributes, traits, and characteristics of the future baby and the elimination of certain deadly or chronic diseases. In this aspect, genetics is desirable as it can remove genetic ailments which are dangerous. It is the same ethical dilemma faced by doctors who practice euthanasia on terminally-ill patients and the relatives of these patients are given a choice based on their personal and religious beliefs. At any rate, major religions of the world prohibit the taking of life whether it is life of someone else or ones own life but this injunction is not absolute but allows for exceptions. In the case of so-called designer babies, why should parents be not allowed to choose the qualities of their own baby when they themselves are the parents and they had not harmed anybody? It is a case of society interfering in the private lives of other people and this is not acceptable because it opens the door to other types of interference or intervention and is an invasion of privacy. People are even very conscious and jealous to protect their privacy in todays social media sites. While choosing the babys gender can be considered as a lifestyle decision, it may be the higher moral argument that parents have the right to make that choice and it should be readily made available to those who want it because what is the purpose of all the scientific research and the knowledge so obtained if it will not be used at all? It should be left to the parents to decide for themselves and not society or government that decides for them. It is an imposition to do so and restricts one of the most basic freedoms a person can have, the right to have a baby. It is natural and expected that scientific knowledge can be applied in many ways and it is up to the people to decide how such knowledge is used to improve their lives. There should be minimal restrictions in the use of gender selection and other genetic enhancement techniques as no one has the right to impose his own moral judgment on other people who choose to avail of this option that is now made available through the advances in scientific and medical techniques. James Watson, co-discoverer of the DNA structure, is correct in saying that it is not right for the government to start dictating how people make decisions on their own families (ibid.). This personal stance on this extremely sensitive issue applies as well to the matter of pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) in which it was originally intended to avert most life-threatening diseases but now so advanced as to include the capability to create those so-called “designer-babies” (Naik, 2011). It is alright to choose desired characteristics of a forthcoming baby because this is an exercise of personal freedom as long as that decision was made with consent and with full disclosure of all facts relevant to baby selection and other features. The ultimate choice should be left to the individual or the parents as it is a personal matter for them although admittedly it has some social implications too but these are peripheral only. The matter reminds me of the eternal question that has not been answered adequately at this time: “Who will guard the guardians?” Moralists and ethicists always argue for some form of control or regulation especially when it comes to new technologies because of the dangers of being misused but the greater question is: who are these people anyway who arrogated unto their own selves the right to guard society? What makes them more qualified than the parents who are only after having a child they want and nothing else? Who will guard these “guardians?” Why should this wonderful technology be denied to parents who want to avail of them? It is not right nor fair because science should serve mankind as mentioned earlier and a scientist said their clinic intends to offer this as a kind of service for prospective parents. In this regard, a wonderful science like PGD should be made available to people who wants them but subject of course to certain qualifications and limitations based only on existing public policies such as the requirement for public health safety and no danger of creating instead monster babies. This may sound a bit counter-intuitive but anything new creates unjustified fears and apprehensions. In a medical sense, choosing to have designer-babies is like opting for elective surgery. The ultimate decision is left to the patient and PGD should be left to the parents to decide. No one should interfere with their decision except only for valid reasons such as giving them the tools to make the right decision based upon their unique circumstances and not on anything else that will be an abridgment of their rights as potential parents. PGD can be considered as one of those innovations that is revolutionary in the sense it is a potentially disruptive technology as it can alter social structures and an existing social order, as what David Adamson admitted (Singer, 2007). Dr. Adamson is the president of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. People are inherently resistant to change because they view change as risky and as threat to their comfort zones. However, progress will always be present as change is inevitable and the people must either adapt to new technologies or perish in the process of change. It is what Andy Grove of giant Intel termed as “inflection points” in which a new disruptive kind of technology is introduced that alters the usual patterns in society (Grove, 1996). It is a positive kind of paranoia or what Professor Michael Porter of Harvard University calls as a form of schizophrenia. This is the same situation obtaining in the case of the so-called three-parent babies. It is admittedly an unusual family structure that defies conventional wisdom of a father and a mother because the forthcoming baby has genes derived from a third party. Again, this procedure made a controversial debate on the issue of bio-ethics because the child carries DNA from a third person who is technically speaking also its parent but from a legal standpoint is not considered as parent because the third-party donor is merely the source of the DNA in a new infertility procedure. Its unusual situation may raise some questions but the baby is alright medically speaking. Conclusion Inventions, innovations, and discoveries that further and expand human knowledge are to be embraced and not rejected or criticized outright. This had been the case with the telephone as discussed in the beginning of this paper when people saw this technology as disruptive and in many sense a negative influence on the lives of people instead of bringing positive social change. Organ transplants were likewise prohibited in its early stages but now accepted as perfectly alright or normal and a matter of procedure that a sick person should be made able to avail. This is the same case with many other medical techniques like surrogate motherhood where its critics once argued strongly against the proliferation of “baby factories” where women get paid to carry a pregnancy like any ordinary commercial transaction. Suspended animation is another medical technology that is potentially disruptive but this time positive as cryogenics will enable the harvesting and preservation of organs and help prevent human organ trafficking. In a final analysis, new technologies should be welcomed and not condemned. In-vitro fertilization and PGD are significant advances in human civilization and can lead to further achievements. References Grove, A. (1996). Only the paranoid survive: How to exploit the crisis points that challenge every company and career. New York, NY, USA: Doubleday. Lemonick, M. D. (1999, January 11). “Designer babies.” Time Magazine. Retrieved November 26, 2014 from http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,989987,00.html Naik, G. (2009, February 12). “A baby, please. Blond, freckles - - hold the colic.” The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved November 25, 2014 from http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB123439771603075099 Rosenzweig, R. (1999). “Live Free or Die? Death, Life, Survival, and Sobriety on the Information Superhighway.” American Quarterly, 51(1), 160-174. Singer, E. (2007, March 01). “Choosing babies.” MIT Technology Review. Retrieved November 27, 2014 from http://www.technologyreview.com/review/407398/choosing-babies/ Due: November 29, 2014 @ 6:26 a.m. Read More