If you had the ability to design your child, would you?
Prenatal screenings have been around since the early 1980s, and have traditionally been used to check for birth defects or medical complications in fetuses. Recent technology, however, has made some genetic alterations to fetuses possible. As this technology grows, so does a host of ethical and moral issues concerning how far parents should go when screening for various traits.
The majority of prenatal tests serve a positive role for both the parents and the babies. They are used to determine various fetal traits such as blood type, nutrient levels, and gender, and are also used to monitor the general health of the developing baby. Some prenatal tests look for various genetic or birth defects, such as Down syndrome, cleft palate, cystic fibrosis, or spina bifida. These early screenings allow doctors to plan for surgery if necessary, and also give parents a chance to prepare emotionally and financially if their baby has a serious disease. This is all fine and well as far as ethics are concerned.
Things quickly get sticky, however, once the option of abortion comes into play. With the knowledge that their child will have a difficult and financially-costly life, parents may choose to end a pregnancy if they find out their child has a major disease such as Down syndrome. While the ethics of abortion are a completely different argument, the main issue raised here is whether it is right or not to judge the future life of a child based on a disease or defect. It also brings into question the role of disabled persons in our society and the stigmas associated with them.
As sad as it may sound, disabled people generally are not treated as equals in modern American society. Those with genetic defects, particularly Down syndrome, are viewed as less-competent humans and are treated as such by others, whether intentionally or not. If parents decide to end a pregnancy once it is established that their child has Down syndrome, they are indirectly admitting that disabled people are less worthy of life than healthy people. Such a viewpoint, even if it is not explicitly expressed by the parents, is a form of modern eugenics. It is a way to promote healthier genes by preventing “inferior” genes from proliferating in the gene pool.
Terminating a pregnancy based on prenatal tests also implies that the life of the disabled child would not be fulfilling or worth the work. Yes, raising a disabled person in society comes with its fair share of challenges; but so does raising any child. A recent study in the American Journal of Medical Genetics (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajmg.a.34293/full) surveyed parents of Down syndrome children. It was found that “79% of parents felt their outlook on life was more positive because of their Down syndrome child.” Furthermore, the “overwhelming majority of parents surveyed reported that they are happy with their decision to have their child with Down syndrome.” Thus despite the stigma associated with disabled children, they can actually have a positive effect on their environment.
Aside from disease screenings, other prenatal technologies exist that are less vital to fetal health. Emerging technology allows for the selection of a small number of traits to be present in a baby. For example, it is possible to greatly increase the chances of having either a boy or a girl, depending on the parents’ preference. Although limited to a few traits now, it is possible that in the near future genetic modifications will allow anything from physical aspects to personality to be chosen before birth.
Is this really a good idea though? One problem with choosing physical traits is that it is a way for parents to force their ideals onto their children. Affinity for cosmetic features such as eye or hair color is completely subjective and varies with culture. By choosing these traits, parents are essentially asserting that one trait is superior to another. For instance, German parents might all choose babies that have blonde hair and blue eyes. This can lead to a phasing out of other traits from the gene pool, and is another form of modern eugenics.
Opponents to genetic modification raise another point—is it right for the parents to choose what their baby looks like? By predetermining what the baby will look like, the parents play God. Obviously choosing the look of your baby is not a natural processes; it deprives the feeling of surprise and wonder from having a child. Moreover, it violates the rights of the unborn baby; the baby did not get a say in whether it wanted to be modified or not. This argument is countered by the idea that unborn babies are the property of the parents. Regardless of the side taken, genetically modifying a baby changes it forever, as the modification cannot be undone.
Finally, if parents go through the processes of designing their baby and it does not end up like they wanted, they will be disappointed. This might cause them to resent the baby or treat it differently than if they had not chosen its traits.
Prenatal screenings have been very helpful in discovering diseases in babies and preparing parents for any complications that might arise. But these technologies are being used for increasingly superficial reasons, and may eventually culminate in designer babies. With prenatal technology continuing to improve every day, the ongoing ethical debates associated with genetic modification of fetuses will not come to an end anytime soon. It is important to stay informed on all sides of this debate in order to make an educated decision when the time comes to have a baby of your own.
No comments:
Post a Comment