I have a few bioethics questions I have been pondering, and would like to hear any opinions on these topics. (I’ll make a separate topic for each question, so as not to confuse the discussion)
I was having the discussion with someone about whether it is OK to use genetic screening and/or genetic manipulation on an human embryo.
They said this is playing god, to which I said we have a responsibility to play god whenever possible.
If you could use screening to determine if your baby would be “special needs” in any way, should you do this, or should you just cross your fingers and hope for the best? I see the conscious choice to forgo screening as immoral. If you have the ability to possibly prevent a genetic disease, and fail to do so - do you not deserve what you get? You had the ability to prevent this tragedy, and failed to act. Should you not suffer the consequences?
I would also like to hear opinions on non “special needs” cases. Take China, for example. With their 1 child per family law - and the fact that many of them want males, causes females to be discarded (after being born), or killed, or treated in other undesirable ways. Genetic screening would be able to determine if the embryo would yield a male offspring; possibly reducing female infanticide by a substantial margin. Would genetic screening of an embryo be acceptable in this instance, as it will reduce the deaths of unwanted babies?
Lets go one step farther. Currently, genetic testing can give probabilities for hair and eye color, as well as a number of other attributes. Other factors, like intelligence, dexterity, athletic ability, creativity, and the like - are not currently able to be determined by today’s genetic tests. So, let’s get hypothetical for a moment, and assume we’re 10 years… 25 or whatever, in the future, to where you DO have the ability to “custom design” your baby. You would like a female baby, free of genetic diseases, with black hair, who will grow (with proper nutrition) to 5’8", will have high aptitude for complex math, a keen resistance to infection, and perfect eyesight. Is this ok? If not - please provide your explanation.
If it all goes wrong, then fools like me wont flourish.
If it all goes well, then fools like me will flourish.
Doesn’t seem like much deviation from the past.
Let’s say there’s a virus spreading through our species. There’s a cure that will only work if everyone was modified pre-birth. Would you force people to modify their children? Do you think it’s fair to force them?
So, to get this straight: a person with special needs in any way is a tragedy, and anyone with a Downs syndrome child is an immoral person who deserves what they get?
You don’t need genetic screening to sex a foetus. I think the main problem is a societal one, storing up an imbalance of the genders seems to me to be a recipe for later trouble; it would be better to try and readjust the expectations and values than mop up the consequences as painlessly as possible and leave the underlying problem to fester.
On a practical note, the parts of the world that female infanticide is a problem are parts of the world where societal norms make girls economically expensive, universal genetic screening is a long way from being an economic option - and if the society were such that it were an economical option, I think there’s a good chance that female infanticide would be much less of an issue.
I think there are a lot of variables to consider. Having a procedure whereby one could select which of your and your partner’s genes combined (to eliminate the risks of recessive genetic defects, for example, or to ensure that the baby gets your partner’s beautiful eyes) would be very different to one in which you selected genes from a catalogue. But the fundamental moral challenge to that is that you are using the child as a means to satisfy your preferences, rather than an end in his or herself.
There are pragmatic considerations, too: if we see less-desirable genes disappearing and make ourselves genetically more homogenous, we become less robust as a species. If we don’t have total knowledge of the genome and the conditions we will face, we might introduce weaknesses at the cost of reducing individual risk. Take sickle-cell anaemia - some genes are highly beneficial, but pose a risks.
Gene screening seems very beneficial. We don’t have any qualms playing god when it comes down to surgery, prolonging life for people who have wasted their life with coffin nails, boose and other damaging things.
On the contrary it seems cruel that people willfully wants people to suffer from genetic defects, it’s kinda sick.
Having never had any children, I am not in a position to speak from experience, however I would posit that if you asked parents of special needs children if they love their children, they would say yes. If you would ask them if it is a tragedy that their child may have a shortened life expectancy, be subjected to lifelong medication, lower cognitive abilities, and the like, many - but certainly not all - would say yes, it is a tragedy. Just as many would likely - if given the chance to “have a do-over” (especially with a guarantee of a non-special needs child), they would take you up on it. Again - certainly not all of them, but a sizeable amount.
This following comment is not sarcastic - it is merely coming from a non-parent. Why do people have children? Because they want to - to satisfy their preference. (the same reason I do not have kids. I prefer not to - at least for the time being, anyways. If my preferences change, there is a high probability my actions will change to reflect this preference). Some people may not care if they have a boy or a girl, an athlete or an invalid. But for those who do have a preference, on what grounds should this be denied? (I am by no means saying they should or should not be denied. I am actually asking this non-rhetorically)
Star Trek causes me to agree with you. Your comments caused an episode to come to the front of my memory. Some planet they landed on… they had no disabilities - everyone was “perfect” in their own way - they would determine who would be artists, and train them to be artists, they would find who would be musicians, and train them to be musicians… But nobody there had bad vision, so they had no need to develop the technology of optics/glasses… and of course that technology was necessary to have the episode end in a happy conclusion - so your idea has serious merit. It is only by having deficiencies, that we have a need to develop technologies to overcome those… making those deficiencies beneficial in the long run, and not detrimental.
I enjoy your comments, Only_Humean. They cause me to think deeply.
Well, I have children but not special needs. I have a couple of friends with siblings that have Down’s syndrome, and I know such children are a lot more work for the parents. But the kids themselves are much more positive and happy than most people I know (I believe that that’s a common trait of people with Down’s, although I don’t know for sure), and it’s hard to say whether they would be “better off without Down’s syndrome”: they would be someone else entirely without it, as it’s chromosomal, not just an on-off switch that has gone wrong. On the other hand, something like cystic fibrosis is painful, debilitating and shortens the sufferer’s life considerably, and a child with a different gene would be more or less the same child without it.
I think the great majority of parents would rather not have a child with Down’s syndrome, but the parents I know don’t regret it. I think it’s a complicated situation, and one in which personal prejudices are often brought to light. Where does one go in a discussion of “well-being”? CF is a more clear-cut case, and I think the only major objectives to trying to eliminate the gene (besides the manner win which it is done) would be religious.
I don’t think most people make a consciously detailed moral argument for having children before they embark on it, but I do think there’s a difference in getting to a stage in life where you think you can offer a stable family home and decide to have(or adopt) children, and one in which you decide to have children in order to make your parents happy, or to keep your relationship from falling apart, or because there’s a hole in your life and you want a child’s unconditional love, or you want to have a child who will be successful to make up for your self-perceived failings or mediocrity.
The current default situation is that we don’t have control, and it has led to the world as it is. Giving parents control (or the state control, or technocrats, or whoever) would lead to a change, and whether that change would be for the better or for the worse is down to the wisdom of those doing the choosing, the ability we have to foresee the long-term consequences and emergent phenomena, and pure luck regarding those things we can’t foresee. Whether we judge that it should be denied is down to our relative weighting of the importance of those factors, our trust in the institutions/people involved and our inherent conservatism/progressivism, risk aversion, politics, values.
Well, I’m not so much saying that it’s good to poke everyone’s eyes out so that we have to develop technologies to overcome blindness, but that some genes are both beneficial and harmful, or beneficial but pose risks that we have to weigh against the benefits (see my earlier point about trust, conservatism etc).
There is no “optimal gene set”. There is only an optimal gene set for a given environment. Insofar as we don’t know how our environment is going to change, and we do not have complete (or even significantly partial) control over the environment we are in, genetic diversity is a protection for our species from future changes. Look on it as an insurance policy - we trade off some costs against protection from unknowns. And, like insurance, the level you find “right” is highly personal.
This just goes to show me how little thought I’ve put into having children. It never even occurred to me that - other than by accident - people had children for reasons other than they personally wanted children.
While I do not know how effective “having a kid to save a relationship” would be - I could certainly see that as an option one would think of - if he/she were desperate to save a relationship, and nothing else seemed to work.
Out of all the ways one could “fill a void” in their life - Having a kid does not seem like the best option however, it certainly does seem like one which has high potential to fill a void. (Though the probability of that potential being fulfilled is largely dependent on the couple/person involved)
I also never considered “I did not do to well, but I’ll have a kid, and do my best to ensure he/she does better than me.” That also rings true to the thoughts I bet many people experience.
Thank you for opening up my eyes on this subject. This gives me much to think about.