Read the case (link via the assignment title above) and answer the following questions:
First, do you agree with the Authority’s decision? Why or why not? What are the significant moral considerations in this case? What consideration is decisive for you?
Second, who should make these decisions? The United States does not currently have such a board, nor do most other countries. However, something similar is currently under consideration in several countries. Leaving aside financial considerations about who should bear the cost for the moment, who should have the right to make the final decision in such cases? Who should make the decision if the procedure is being paid for by federal health insurance? Private health insurance? The individual patient or family?
Suggested completion date: October 3, 2008
Friday, September 12, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
19 comments:
No, I don’t agree with the Authorities decision to prevent pre testing of the embryos because if you look at the cost factor it would be more economical to do the pretesting. What if the parents decided that “Look, if you won’t pay for it well just start having babies until we get a match.” Meanwhile, all this time has lapsed; you have more children than were intended, as a socialist society the government has to pay for all those children (school, health care, etc) and who’s to say that there wouldn’t be another child with the same condition. I think that the parents were acting responsibly in that they wanted to keep costs and heartache to a minimum. I think that the Authorities need to rethink this decision.
ML
I agree with the authorities’ decision to not grant the extra testing. The only reason is because if they don’t have a board or some kind of group to go over the case it could cause problems. If the government starts granting special procedures without looking into them they will get inundated with people who want other, unnecessary procedures done. What do you do then? I think until a group of people are assigned to specifically analyze each case you can’t grant special attention. I think the family has to go through enough but unfortunately, because of a faulty system, they can’t be helped. However if a board is established after the family pays for it on their own, I think the case should be reviewed. If proven worthy the government should reimburse the family for all of their expenses.
joe king
In this situation, Charlie’s parents are going to create another life on their own the old fashioned way if the government doesn’t allow the procedure. They may have multilple children trying to get a match. The life is going to be created anyway and the Authority is not going to sterilize them to prevent it. The cost of what the parents are trying to do would seem the only real factor, because it would be funded by taxpayers. I think the Authority should allow it because it will help Charlie live a more normal life, and it will reduce the costs of Charlie’s health care. It may also reduce costs of Charlie’s parents having multiple births. The Authority just saying it’s wrong makes no sense. If Charlie were healthy there’s a very good chance his parents would have another child anyway.
If private health insurance were looking at it, I think they would approve it on a cost benefit basis by weighing the extra costs of screening against a lifetime of health care expenses for Charlie. It’s also the “right” thing to do to give Charlie the best chance of a normal life no matter who is paying for it. Right of course is my own personal sense of what is right.
Greg Dawson
I agree with the Authorities decision to not grant the embryo testing. Children are not meant to be in hospitals. Children are meant to laugh and play and enjoy life's simplest elements.
A child brought into the world to save a sibling will suffer severe psychological problems. What if the sibling passes anyway? How is that child going to feel? Plus how are the parents going to treat that child for letting them down? Not only would this child be abused physically but possibly emotionally later in life if the sibling does pass.
Amanda Rhoades
Do I think it is ok to make a life to save one? No!! Reason being, I know I’m not in their shoes, but that child would find out that they were only born for the purpose to save their sibling. That wouldn’t be ethical! I would try everything to save my child, but not at the cost of the government. That money should go to the other families who need it in the way the gov. provides. I just think that even though it may save one life, the child would go through so much to save the sibling then live with the reason they were born. I’m religious, and if that was what was suppose to happen than they would have a child without trying to play God. If it were me I don’t know how I’d react, but I would try to go off my beliefs.
Michelle Camping
I think either way the Whitaker’s are probably going to have another child in order to help their son Charlie, whether they do it naturally or with fertility help to save their son. I do not agree with the Authorities decision because the Whitaker’s will have another child either way, at least with the testing they will know for sure that their son can be helped by their next child.
Some considerations would be whether or not the Whitaker’s had planned on having a second child in the first place before all of the medical benefits to their son Charlie came along. Also, is the youngest child going to be subject to a life of pain and medical testing, or could Charlie be saved with a one-time procedure that would allow both children to live normal lives.
It is hard to say who should make these decisions. A couples decision to have children and to use fertility help is very personal. But it is also an emotional one, and people don’t think straight when their emotions come into play. It might be beneficial to have someone overseeing these decisions, but only denying them in the most extreme cases.
Erin Bell
BIOTHICS SCENARIO- THREE
EDDIE. PRATT
10/13/08
I agree; Science and technology are valuable resources for man when placed
at his service and when they promote his integral development for the benefit
of all; the rapid development of technological discoveries gives greater urgency
to this need to respect the criteria just mentioned: science without conscience can
only lead to man’s ruin. Human embryos obtained in vitro are human being and
are subjects with rights; their dignity and right to life must be respected from
the first moment or their existence. It is immoral to produce human embryos
to be exploited as disposable “ biological material” While much good may come
From the proposed research, we must not lose sight of the fact that the means
Used to reach that good end must also be moral.
It is the family right to make these decision; for this reason the new
technological possibilities which have opened up in the field of biomedicine
require the intervention of the political authorities and the legislator, since
an uncontrolled application of such techniques could lead to unforeseeable
and damaging consequence for civil society. The individual patient or family
would paid the cost.
I do agree with the authority's decision. You cannot create life just to save another. That child that Charlie's parents would have brought into the world, would be solely based to save Charlie's life. Its not fair at all. Of course I can understand that they want to save their son, and the extra testing could solve the Charlie's medical issues. There is also the chance that it might not help Charlie at all. That could leave their second child feel useless. I think that the government should have some say in these kinds of things to prevent future society issues. If things were not up to the government then the families requesting these kinds of procedures should be responsible for payment. It is not up to insurance to pay for such things.
Amanda Breed
ML-
I never thought about the authorities decision helping future government spending. That was a great way to analyze the situation. Sometimes things need to be figured out without bringing emotion's into the mix.
Amanda Rhoades
When you try to put yourself in a position like this all you can think is, what would I do? I have a 3 year old son so, if he was to suddenly be diagnosed with a form of, lets say leukemia, and was in need of a bone marrow transplant and not one of our family members were a match for him, would I be able to put a bunch of my babies in a dish, pick one and throw the rest away based on the needs of the son that I already have? I would want what is best for my children, both of them. If I was guaranteed the outcome that I wanted, I might do it. However, since you are never guaranteed anything in life, I agree with the decision that the Authority made. Bone marrow testing and transplants are very, very painful operations and I just cannot see making BOTH children go through that. Besides the fact that the child born for the need of the eldest child would eventually find out the reason behind their birth and will undoubtedly be very upset. I don’t know that anyone should have to make this decision, although it does have to happen in many cases. When it does happen I think that it should be a decision that the parents make together. I think that if parents want to try and have a second child “the old fashioned way” and HOPE that it is a match for their other child, this would be a better solution, not guaranteed, but better. This way the family has decided that if they do in fact get a match for their child, the second child would be a blessing, and the child would never feel as if they were never wanted and would feel as though they were brought into the world because the family wanted them there. I think that even if the U.S. were to make a department to decipher who would be able to “create a life to save a life”, why would one family be able to and one not? Therefore I do not believe that anyone should be able to make this decision. Like I said before it is a family decision.
Kayla Parent
Greg Dawson--
I totally agree that the parents are going to try and have a child regardless of whether they are approved or not. Although there is no guarantee that the child will be a match for Charlie, at least this will make the parents think of whether they want a child because the want another child or if they having the child for the sole purpose of saving their son.
Kayla Parent
In regard to Michelle Camping:
What is to necessarily say that the child will feel guilt and resentment at being conceived for the purpose of saving a sibling. They may feel that it was meant to be. If I had a choice an it was my sister or brother that needed a kidney or bone marrow from me and it would be life saving for them I wouldn't necessarily feel that it was meant to be and that shouldnt be done. I believe that the parents wouldn't love this new child any less than the other child that they are doing so much to save his life. Seems to me that it would be treated with the same love and care and not feel negatively about it regardless.
MLongtim
Yes, Indeed I agree with the Authority’s decision to stop the unethical conduct. Creating a human life with the specific purpose is violation of human nature. I see this as a beginning of a human harvesting.
The significant moral consideration for this case is that we are treating a human as a product, a thing, that we can choose and make IT as we desire! The deeper meaning of human-being is completely violated. We shouldn’t create nor justify human life in a name of sacrifice for other life. That mentality is no different from the Inca’s human sacrifice practice.
The US’ laws and regulation policy makers must start to dialogue and prepare for the emerging genome projects. Undoubtably we’ll face the uncharted areas of ethics and consequences.
JWK
Michelle Camping
11-15-2008
In response to ML I don't agree. You need to let nature do it's thing. I think it is playing God, and the childs intrest born just to save another is selfish and not in it's best intrest.
I do not agree with the Authority's decision. I believe if they were in the same position they would be changing their minds very fast. I do see the down-sides to doing these tests and many organizations are opposed to testing prior and if you don't get a right match basically disregarding that test and trying again. I believe if anyone had a child with a condition and wanted another child they would put these tests in to consideration as well. If you can help your child, you will, regardless what it may call for. I do see the side of "playing god" by doing this but the world has come to different technologies and if they want to go that route then they shouldn't be allowing in vitro in the first place. That is similar to what they are denying.
I don't think a decision like this should be left up to anyone except the party requesting it. To be denied helping your child is unthinkable, especially for someone to be telling you can not do so, if you are able to. I think there should be a board to oversee cases like this, I think if they were testing to see "what kind of child they might have" or keep testing to make sure they get certain qualities, that would be absurd. If it had to do with medical conditions and preventing or helping something like that, I believe that is in a different ball park and shouldn't be able to be "denied".
Commenting on ML
I agree with what was said completely. What is stopping the family from just having more children and having to have their government funding help. I believe in Europe their health care is paid for by their government. In a sense this family is saving them a lot of money by requesting this testing prior to pregnancy. I think it is the family's decision and if they were to have multiple children to try to get a match, then so be it. It was the Authorities who denied them.
amanda,
No matter what happens to the first son I can't see the parents abusing the second child or even blaming him.
Joe k
I believe that the Human and Fertilization and Embrology Authhority made the correct decision to reject the Whitaker family's request. I feel that it is necessary that that a government agency such as this should make these types of decisions. It's hard for parties not be emotionally attached to the issues when they're so close to home. A third party would be needed to intervene to provide clarity and an objective view. In addition to a governmental agency making these types of choices, both children's rights and conditions need to be taken into consideration. According to US law, children are not capable of making sound decisions until after the age of fifteen. I feel that until then, a child should not be forced to undergo possibly painful and repetitive treatments and/or procedures in order to save a sibling's life. There are also many possible psychological and physical consequences that the child born “to save another's life” would face. -Alana Zinkie
I agree that authorities should not grant pre testing. A child's life is a very special thing and should not be taken lightly. Also, children are not simply created for reasons to benefit that of another life. They should be made to enjoy their lives with families and friends. I agree that this could cause severe psychological damage to the child.
Shundeen Cadman
Post a Comment