Ethics

Preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) is the process of genetically analyzing embryos through a process commonly known as vitro fertilization. This process is carried out to identify the embryos with the desired characteristics and those with particular genetic disorders which are then disposed of. The embryos with the desired characteristics are used for implantation into the uterus of a woman to develop a child. Activists of the disable claim that preimplantation genetic diagnosis results in perpetration of prejudice directed at the disabled population, as it tolerate the understated notion that the disable are better off unborn. On the other hand, some people argue that Preimplantation genetic diagnosis is ethically acceptable and therefore the choice of embryo implantation should be left at the discretion of the parents.

Pregnant mothers normally endeavor to deliver children who are free from any notable disability. In order to achieve this, PGD is usually given to certain individuals. This method is employed to determine the presence of certain undesired characteristics in embryos resulting from vitro fertilization before being implanted in the uterus. The embryos found to possess certain genetic disorders are usually destroyed or frozen for the unforeseeable future. Embryos without any genetic disorders are implanted into the uterus of a woman in order to develop into a child. Since this technique, involves the disposing of embryos, many complex ethical and moral dilemmas have arisen, such as Under what circumstances should this technique be applied Could the outcome of this process be employed in making unethical, prejudiced decisions Will this process further increase the negative perception of the disable Is the right of the parents to have exclusive control over the genetic uniqueness of the offspring sustained In order to answer these questions, many factors and perspectives developed out of experience or personal system of belief should be taken into consideration.

Preimplantation genetic diagnosis technique necessitates the removal of embryos with the possibility of yielding children with disability. The idea of trying to avoid children with disability irritates the disabled community. Disability rights activists have a feeling that there is a fundamental conviction in selecting embryos based on the argument that the disabled people are better off unborn. Instead of trying to reduce the number of people with disability, these activists have a feeling that the society should adopt a more open-mined stance towards the disable. They argue that despite their disability, the disable still undergo rewarding and momentous lives. Additionally, they argue that the pressure the society exerts on couples to have a baby free of abnormality should not be reflected on their decision to hinder an embryo from development. It is apparent the disabled populations are infuriated by the faint perception associated with preimplantation genetic diagnosis suggesting that disability is undesirable characteristic to be seen in a child.

Contrary to the critics of the disabled, supporters of preimplantation genetic diagnosis argue that it is ethically acceptable. They argue that couples should have the discretion of using the existing technology to establish all the possible traits of a child. Unless substantial evidence on the damage to particular can be shown, they argue that the choice of determining the characteristics of an offspring is a freedom that should be accorded to all the parents. According to George Annas, just as other consumer products, embryonic screening should not be an exception and should therefore be left upon the individuals to make a decision prior to buying the product. In addition, medical practitioners and pharmaceuticals should be allowed to freely make adverts and sell the product. However, he argues that the perceived attitude will basically make parents view their offspring as products instead of humans. On the other hand, embryonic screening may be only feasible to the rich. Other people also argue that many parents by now transform their offspring in specific ways, and introducing a genetic perspective to this debate would mean the same. According to Robertson (1993), parents already have the liberty to improve the characteristics of their offspring after birth based on several measures ranging from social to educative, for example using specialized tutors. These measures give children certain advantages over the others, aggravate class, social and economic disparities, and have the danger of perceiving a child as a product which can be utilized to achieve the desires of the parent. However, these measures are within the prudence of the parent in nurturing the offspring, and are constitutionally permissible. In terms of constitutionality, preimplantation genetic diagnosis is acceptable, even if the social inferences are undoubtedly an ethical issue. Therefore, it is apparent that many activists are of the idea that parents should be given exclusive freedom in making decisions of their reproductive life.

The concept of preimplantation genetic diagnosis is complicated, associated with various differing perspectives to take into account. From my own point of view of the technique, there are certain cases where its application is morally permissible. Parents from a background of genetic disorders always have a fear of bearing offspring with certain genetic abnormalities and therefore have a short life to live. In such circumstances, such parents may forget about child bearing altogether in general, with the fear that child bearing would bring them grief. On the other hand, they can employ preimplantation genetic diagnosis technique to screen for unwanted genetic disorders so that child bearing can be a reality to them. Since offspring diagnosed with genetic disorders usually die at an early age, avoiding the birth of such an offspring may reduce the grief that the family may undergo if the child were to be born.

While understanding the legality of using preimplantation genetic diagnosis to eliminate certain disorders, it is obvious that there exists certain identifiable danger in the future that may occur with its frequent use.  Conceivably, couples may misuse embryonic screening to achieve a desired gender. Using preimplantation genetic diagnosis in such a manner would be considered unethical. The concern of the people with disability is also understandable since preimplantation genetic diagnosis sometimes is a reflection of the societys censure for the disabled and endeavors to create a perfect society and their being unjust to the disabled community. From the perspectives discussed above, preimplantation genetic diagnosis can be utilized effectively to avoid the birth of a child with genetic disorders. In certain situations where the use of preimplantation genetic diagnosis is extremely generous, such as when the likelihood of an embryo developing into a perfectly into a healthy human being but is destroyed for exterior motives, preimplantation genetic diagnosis is considered ethically and morally wrong. It is therefore important to appreciate that as technological advancements continue to take shape in molecular biology, concerns surrounding preimplantation genetic diagnosis are expected to be more complicated. Therefore, upholding a concise perspective of its consequences is critical in ensuring an ethically and morally tenable society presently and in the future.