1) I feel like this question is mostly opinion-based. If you had the option to find out how you die, would you want to find out? In terms of ethics, wouldn't it be immoral to "play God" and find out your fate? For her sake, I don't think wisdom has anything to do with it, just personal preference. And if we are just talking about only Heather D being tested at the moment, it's not up to me to decide whether or not her decision is wise, because her fate is her own. Personally, I don't think I would want to know when I was going to die either.
2) I think the genetic counselor does provide a solution that brings satisfaction. If Heather D doesn't want to know she has the disease, why not bring an objective third party in that will rule out the possibility of her finding out? It does resolve the issue in keeping this secret, but it does bring up a moral problem, however, in deciding which embryo gets the chance at becoming a child. For Heather D's personal comfort, she gets to make the choice to kill off any embryos that have the gene, which IS deciding the fate of other potential human beings. But then again, "nature" did decide which embryo gets the gene and which didn't, so pursuing this suggestion by the counselor isn't as immoral as I would think? Because you don't know which embryo would have been fertilized (gene or no gene), but at the same time who gets to decide which embryo will become a person? But to answer the question, it does provide a solution to the problem.
3) It is morally equivalent, because you are killing a potential human being either way, just at different points in time. If she didn't want to find out whether she had the gene or not, and she doesn't want her children to suffer through that, then the preimplantation genetic diagnosis would be better suited for the situation, because she will never have to know. But once again, they both raise the moral question of who gets to decide the child in question's faith. Either way, the mother is getting rid of the affected organism.
1) Personally, no. I do not think that her decision to not get tested is wise. If it were me, I would HAVE to know, or else it would eat at me until I found out. In theory, I would like to not know so that I could be oblivious and try to live a normal life, but I know myself too well to say that. It would drive me crazy not knowing about a terminal illness that I had. 2) The genetic counselor’s suggestion satisfies Heather’s problem. By doing a preimplantation genetic diagnosis, several of Heather’s embryos could be formed in vitro, which could then be tested for the presence of the Huntington’s gene, with the results of which not being shared with Heather or her husband. This way, Heather could only have a child that has an absence of the dominant Huntington’s gene. 3) I don’t necessarily find the genetic counselor’s suggestion to be immoral. From a first glance, the situation does SEEM immoral because Heather is basically deciding which embryo will get to live, and which embryos will not. But Zach raises a good point, and I also mentioned this in the delayed twinning case – Picking a healthy embryo to live, while discarding the others, is not immoral. The parent’s decision on which embryo to use will solely be based on whether or not the embryo has the Huntington’s gene. But between the embryos that do not have the gene, the decision is based on chance. It’s not like the parents are going to maniacally kill the other embryos because they were showing favoritism over another. In this case, the parents are going to be forced to make a decision that nature would normally have to do on its own – normally it is which sperm will get to fertilize the egg, but in this case, it is which healthy embryo will get to become a baby?
1.) To me, Heather's decision not to get tested is not wise, but I understand from where she is coming. Huntington's Disease is not pretty; you slowly lose control of your body, then your mind. Out of all of the possible ways to die, this is not an easy way to go. So while she has a 50% chance that she will not develop it, there is also a 50% chance that she will. I personally would have to know as soon as possible because I have always been and will always be a planner, even if it means planning out my last days. But in her case, she may not want to know because if she finds out she will develop it, then death becomes real. People die all the time, all around us, but most people don't think of death as something that is going to happen to them. We try and put death out of mind and act like it will never happen to us. If she were to find out that she is going to die, that makes death become a reality, a harsh reality.
2.) Yes the counselor's suggestion provides a solution to Heather's problem but it doesn't provide a solution to the couple's problem. Most everyone who strongly opposes abortion would consider "discarding" embryos as abortion. The point can be made that the husband won't have an issue with this because he won't know about it. But there in lies yet another issue and that is that the wife is being dishonest with her husband about such a serious matter. If he were to find out about this later on, this could put their relationship in jeopardy, as well as their family situation. So while this suggestion may provide a solution to Heather's situation, it does not provide a solution to the couple's situation.
3.) I personally believe that these two "procedures" are morally equivalent as I feel that an embryo at any stage is considered living. So discarding an embryo before it is implanted is as morally "wrong" as is aborting a fetus who is predisposed to Huntington's Disease.
In the end, this is a very difficult situation. As such, it seems that any choice or action made in this situation has some negative outcomes associated with it. It seems that the best choice would be the one that results in the least amount of "bad results."
1) I don't think Heather's choice is wise because if it were me I would have to know. I would want the chance to prepare for my death and to say bye to my loved ones. I feel as though the knowledge of have the disease or not would be very relieving.
2)Yes, the counselor's suggestion offers a solution to the problem. It allows them to have children of their own with the confidence that the disease will not be passed on.
3)I feel as though the discarding of the affected embryo morally is the equivalency of an abortion. In both situations you are knowingly killing an embryo which is a person from the beginning.
1) I don't think Heather's choice is wise because if it were me I would have to know. I would want the chance to prepare for my death and to say bye to my loved ones. I feel as though the knowledge of have the disease or not would be very relieving.
2)Yes, the counselor's suggestion offers a solution to the problem. It allows them to have children of their own with the confidence that the disease will not be passed on.
3)I feel as though the discarding of the affected embryo morally is the equivalency of an abortion. In both situations you are knowingly killing an embryo which is a person from the beginning.
1. I believe that Heather's choice to not get tested is HER own choice, and it's not an outsider's right to determine what is best for her. As Zach said, if given the opportunity most people would not want to know their own fates, as it may lead you to living your life differently. If I was Heather, however, I wouldn't want to know either, and I wouldn't want to pass something along to my child that could be life changing to it as well. This is a completely opinion-based question, so it makes it tough to answer in an ethical way.
2. I think that the suggestion offered by the genetic counselor is a solution to the issue at hand. Heather's husband is against abortion, so this suggestion allows the couple to make decisions about discarding some embryos before they even begin to grow, which should be satisfactory for her husband (kind of like a "what he doesn't know won't hurt him" thought). It also allows Heather to stay unaware of her possible disease.
3. I do think that the preimplantation genetic diagnosis and discarding of affected embryos are morally equivalent to prenatal diagnosis and selective abortion, however I also believe that the first pair are much more under-wraps and appropriate to their situation. At least they are taking into account the future of their possible embryos, and not reproducing blindly which could lead to later abortions or a troubled life for their child. I think that morally they're both questionable, and maybe unethical to most people, but in their situation what would you do??
1) I feel like this question is mostly opinion-based. If you had the option to find out how you die, would you want to find out? In terms of ethics, wouldn't it be immoral to "play God" and find out your fate? For her sake, I don't think wisdom has anything to do with it, just personal preference. And if we are just talking about only Heather D being tested at the moment, it's not up to me to decide whether or not her decision is wise, because her fate is her own. Personally, I don't think I would want to know when I was going to die either.
ReplyDelete2) I think the genetic counselor does provide a solution that brings satisfaction. If Heather D doesn't want to know she has the disease, why not bring an objective third party in that will rule out the possibility of her finding out? It does resolve the issue in keeping this secret, but it does bring up a moral problem, however, in deciding which embryo gets the chance at becoming a child. For Heather D's personal comfort, she gets to make the choice to kill off any embryos that have the gene, which IS deciding the fate of other potential human beings. But then again, "nature" did decide which embryo gets the gene and which didn't, so pursuing this suggestion by the counselor isn't as immoral as I would think? Because you don't know which embryo would have been fertilized (gene or no gene), but at the same time who gets to decide which embryo will become a person? But to answer the question, it does provide a solution to the problem.
3) It is morally equivalent, because you are killing a potential human being either way, just at different points in time. If she didn't want to find out whether she had the gene or not, and she doesn't want her children to suffer through that, then the preimplantation genetic diagnosis would be better suited for the situation, because she will never have to know. But once again, they both raise the moral question of who gets to decide the child in question's faith. Either way, the mother is getting rid of the affected organism.
1) Personally, no. I do not think that her decision to not get tested is wise. If it were me, I would HAVE to know, or else it would eat at me until I found out. In theory, I would like to not know so that I could be oblivious and try to live a normal life, but I know myself too well to say that. It would drive me crazy not knowing about a terminal illness that I had.
ReplyDelete2) The genetic counselor’s suggestion satisfies Heather’s problem. By doing a preimplantation genetic diagnosis, several of Heather’s embryos could be formed in vitro, which could then be tested for the presence of the Huntington’s gene, with the results of which not being shared with Heather or her husband. This way, Heather could only have a child that has an absence of the dominant Huntington’s gene.
3) I don’t necessarily find the genetic counselor’s suggestion to be immoral. From a first glance, the situation does SEEM immoral because Heather is basically deciding which embryo will get to live, and which embryos will not. But Zach raises a good point, and I also mentioned this in the delayed twinning case – Picking a healthy embryo to live, while discarding the others, is not immoral. The parent’s decision on which embryo to use will solely be based on whether or not the embryo has the Huntington’s gene. But between the embryos that do not have the gene, the decision is based on chance. It’s not like the parents are going to maniacally kill the other embryos because they were showing favoritism over another. In this case, the parents are going to be forced to make a decision that nature would normally have to do on its own – normally it is which sperm will get to fertilize the egg, but in this case, it is which healthy embryo will get to become a baby?
1.) To me, Heather's decision not to get tested is not wise, but I understand from where she is coming. Huntington's Disease is not pretty; you slowly lose control of your body, then your mind. Out of all of the possible ways to die, this is not an easy way to go. So while she has a 50% chance that she will not develop it, there is also a 50% chance that she will. I personally would have to know as soon as possible because I have always been and will always be a planner, even if it means planning out my last days. But in her case, she may not want to know because if she finds out she will develop it, then death becomes real. People die all the time, all around us, but most people don't think of death as something that is going to happen to them. We try and put death out of mind and act like it will never happen to us. If she were to find out that she is going to die, that makes death become a reality, a harsh reality.
ReplyDelete2.) Yes the counselor's suggestion provides a solution to Heather's problem but it doesn't provide a solution to the couple's problem. Most everyone who strongly opposes abortion would consider "discarding" embryos as abortion. The point can be made that the husband won't have an issue with this because he won't know about it. But there in lies yet another issue and that is that the wife is being dishonest with her husband about such a serious matter. If he were to find out about this later on, this could put their relationship in jeopardy, as well as their family situation. So while this suggestion may provide a solution to Heather's situation, it does not provide a solution to the couple's situation.
3.) I personally believe that these two "procedures" are morally equivalent as I feel that an embryo at any stage is considered living. So discarding an embryo before it is implanted is as morally "wrong" as is aborting a fetus who is predisposed to Huntington's Disease.
In the end, this is a very difficult situation. As such, it seems that any choice or action made in this situation has some negative outcomes associated with it. It seems that the best choice would be the one that results in the least amount of "bad results."
1) I don't think Heather's choice is wise because if it were me I would have to know. I would want the chance to prepare for my death and to say bye to my loved ones. I feel as though the knowledge of have the disease or not would be very relieving.
ReplyDelete2)Yes, the counselor's suggestion offers a solution to the problem. It allows them to have children of their own with the confidence that the disease will not be passed on.
3)I feel as though the discarding of the affected embryo morally is the equivalency of an abortion. In both situations you are knowingly killing an embryo which is a person from the beginning.
1) I don't think Heather's choice is wise because if it were me I would have to know. I would want the chance to prepare for my death and to say bye to my loved ones. I feel as though the knowledge of have the disease or not would be very relieving.
ReplyDelete2)Yes, the counselor's suggestion offers a solution to the problem. It allows them to have children of their own with the confidence that the disease will not be passed on.
3)I feel as though the discarding of the affected embryo morally is the equivalency of an abortion. In both situations you are knowingly killing an embryo which is a person from the beginning.
1. I believe that Heather's choice to not get tested is HER own choice, and it's not an outsider's right to determine what is best for her. As Zach said, if given the opportunity most people would not want to know their own fates, as it may lead you to living your life differently. If I was Heather, however, I wouldn't want to know either, and I wouldn't want to pass something along to my child that could be life changing to it as well. This is a completely opinion-based question, so it makes it tough to answer in an ethical way.
ReplyDelete2. I think that the suggestion offered by the genetic counselor is a solution to the issue at hand. Heather's husband is against abortion, so this suggestion allows the couple to make decisions about discarding some embryos before they even begin to grow, which should be satisfactory for her husband (kind of like a "what he doesn't know won't hurt him" thought). It also allows Heather to stay unaware of her possible disease.
3. I do think that the preimplantation genetic diagnosis and discarding of affected embryos are morally equivalent to prenatal diagnosis and selective abortion, however I also believe that the first pair are much more under-wraps and appropriate to their situation. At least they are taking into account the future of their possible embryos, and not reproducing blindly which could lead to later abortions or a troubled life for their child. I think that morally they're both questionable, and maybe unethical to most people, but in their situation what would you do??