Question

Any ethical or social issues about Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis and Prenatal Testing?

Answer 1

Ethical Issues That Arise from Use of the Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis

SARAH ALSAMARAI
Abstract—Preimplantation genetic diagnosis, or PGD, is sometimes offered to couples undergoing in vitro fertilization. In this process, embryos are tested for certain genetic disorders. The embryos found to have genetic disorders are discarded or frozen indefinitely, while the others may be implanted into a woman’s uterus in hopes of developing into a child. Advocates of the disabled argue that PGD will perpetuate intolerance toward the disabled community, as its practice bears the subtle implication that those with disabilities are “better off unborn.” Others argue that all uses of PGD are ethically permissible and that the decision of whether or not to implant embryos with genetic disorders should be made completely at the parents’ discretion. After considering several schools of thought, I reason that offering PGD to couples with a history of serious genetic disease is ethically permissible. I also note that PGD has the potential of being used in an unethical manner, particularly in cases where embryos may be discarded for superficial, and not life-threatening, reasons.

People who are planning a pregnancy generally strive to give birth to a healthy child that is free of notable handicap. To achieve such an end, preimplantation genetic diagnosis is sometimes offered to the minority of persons who have in vitro fertilization. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) is a technique used to test for certain genetic abnormalities in embryos produced by in vitro fertilization prior to implantation in the uterus. The screening for genetic defects occurs at the six to ten cell stage of embryonic development. Using polymerase chain reaction, the cellular DNA is tested for chromosomal abnormalities or genetic mutations. The embryos found to have serious genetic disorders are either discarded or frozen indefinitely. The embryos tested may then be implanted into a woman’s uterus in hopes of developing into a child (Harris 175). It is important to note that at present, only certain genetic diseases can be detected through PGD. Thus, its practice cannot guarantee embryos completely free of genetic disease, but it can screen for several diseases. As the practice involves the discarding of embryos, several multifaceted ethical dilemmas arise, such as: When should this technique be used? Could its findings be used to make unethical, biased decisions? Will the perception of people with physical handicaps grow more negative? Do parents maintain a right to have complete control over the characteristics of their offspring? The answers to these questions depend on many factors and viewpoints, formulated from experience or personal tenets and values.

The practice of preimplantation genetic diagnosis calls for the disposal of one or multiple embryos with the likelihood of developing into disabled children. The notion of avoiding the creation of disabled persons infuriates members of the disabled community. Advocates for rights of the disabled feel that there is an underlying belief in selecting embryos that people with disabilities are “better off unborn” (Harris 179). Rather than essentially try to decrease the number of disabled persons, they feel that society should undergo a serious change in attitude toward the disabled and adopt a more tolerant stance. Activists point out that people with disabilities still maintain rewarding and meaningful lives. They further argue that societal pressures to have the “perfect baby” should not be reflected in a couple’s choice to prevent an embryo from developing into a child (Harris 180). It is clear that members of the disabled community are bothered by the subtle suggestion inherent to embryonic screening that a disability is an unacceptable trait to be seen in offspring.

In contrast to advocates of the disabled, some feel that all uses of PGD are ethically permissible. They feel that prospective parents should have the right to use existing embryo screening tests to determine all possible characteristics of offspring. Unless a tangible harm to specific individuals can be evidenced, those of this belief argue that selection of offspring traits is a liberty all parents should have (Harris 185). George Annas, chairman of the Health Law Department at the Boston University School of Public Health, writes from this viewpoint, “Prenatal tests become a consumer product, and as with other consumer products it should be up to the individual whether or not to buy the product, and physicians and companies should be free to advertise and sell the product in any misleading way” (Annas 265). Annas fears that such an attitude will make parents more likely to perceive their children as products rather than people. Another likely harm may be that prenatal testing will only be a feasible option for the wealthy. If the likelihood of genetic disease in the wealthy decreases and other citizens do not have access to PGD, will genetic disease perhaps be associated only with the economically unprivileged? Others may argue that parents already try to shape their children in certain ways, and adding the genetic dimension to their influence would not be very different. For example, Robertson writes: “Parents now have wide discretion to enhance offspring traits after birth with actions that range from the purely social and educative, such as special tutors and training camps, to the physio-medico…such actions may give the child advantages over other children, exacerbate class and socioeconomic differences, and risk treating the child like a product or object to serve the parent’s interests. Yet they fall within a parent’s discretion in rearing offspring, and could not constitutionally be banned” (Robertson 164). PGD is perfectly permissible in terms of law, Robertson suggests, although he realizes the social implications are certainly an ethical concern. Thus, it is clear that some are of the belief that parents maintain the right to control their procreative rights.

The topic of preimplantation genetic diagnosis is decidedly complex, filled with different viable schools of thought to consider. From my own understanding of the practice, there are a few instances where I feel that its use is morally consistent with my values. Couples with histories of genetic diseases are often fearful of bringing children into the world who will be stricken with a painful disease that will result in a short life-span. In some cases, such couples may avoid bearing children altogether, being unable to cope with the potential difficulties and grief that bearing children with serious genetic disorders could bring. With current technology, it is possible to completely screen for some serious genetic disorders that may have dissuaded couples from having children in the past. For example, Tay-Sachs disease can be detected preimplantation (www.emedicine.com). As children afflicted with the serious disorder pass away at about age four, preventing the birth of a seriously sick child may lessen the burden for the family and protect them from experiencing feelings of grief that could be prevented.

While I understand the validity of using PGD to screen for some disorders, it is apparent that there are certain recognizable future harms that may arise if its use is applied too liberally or frequently. Perhaps couples could abuse the screening as a way to select a preferred gender. Using PGD in this way is unethical. I also understand disabled people’s concern that PGD at times reflects society’s disapproval of the disabled and strives to establish a vision of a “perfect society” that is unfair to the handicapped. Considering the viewpoints discussed, I therefore feel that PGD can be used as an effective tool to prevent the birth of a seriously ill child. In other cases, where its use can be applied too generously, such as when the embryo can still develop into a perfectly well human being but is discarded for superficial reasons, PGD is not consistent with my ethical beliefs. It is important to realize that as the field of molecular biology continues to grow, issues pertaining to the use of preimplantation genetic diagnosis are certain to complicate. Thus, maintaining a clear view of its implications is vital to ensure an ethically sound society at present and especially in the foreseeable future.

Answer 2

wow! thnx mate.....can we say that prental testing slightly increases the risk of miscarriage?

Answer 3

http://www.bc.edu/clubs/mendel/ethos/archives/2006/alsamarai.shtml

the source

Answer 4

thnx pupster

Answer 5

ur welcome @SyedMohammed98

Answer 6

if u have any doubts get free to ask!!!!!!