Attitudes toward Genetic Screening - Essay Example

Is it ethical to use in vitro genetic screening of human embryos to select for embryos with a disability such as deafness, if born-deaf parentsso wished?” Course Date Introduction The field of Molecular Biology has seen advancements in recent years. In particular the area of genetics has been one of the areas where great and massive advancement has been made. As of now, advancement in aided reproduction and genetics has resulted in new means to analyse embryos that are in their early phases in vitro for certain genetic traits and features. After which, these embryos are chosen for or against been used to start pregnancy (The President’s Council on Bioethics, 2004). This essay looks at the use of genetic screening to select for embryos without deafness. It analyses the ethical dilemma that society is faced with at its use, answering the question whether it is ethical to use in vitro genetic screening of human embryos to select for a disability like deafness. It discusses the arguments for and the arguments against while presenting my view regarding it. Advances in molecular genetics have brought about a situation whereby genetic testing has become a choice for deaf people along with their families. However, little research has been done on how genetic testing is viewed. A survey done by Brunger, et al., (2000) on the attitude of parents who had normal hearing but had children with hearing deficiencies indicated that 96% of them had a positive attitude towards genetic testing for deafness. It is however important to note that the parents surveyed expressed little understanding of genetics. 98 % were not able to rightly state the chance of the condition redeveloping in the life of the child. They also did not understand the basics of genetic inheritance. Basing the discussion on this survey, if the parents of the child agree to the use of in vitro genetic screening, then, for the procedure to be deemed ethical, it must be known if they do understand what it is and what it encompasses. If they do, then it can be deemed ethical. But if they do not understand, then that would be considered as unethical as it is like taking advantage of their lack of knowledge on the issue to perform a technique that will determine the life of their child. The World Federation of the Deaf (n.d.) states that the rights of any human being can only be appreciated through one’s own language and culture, a statement that is described as true to all persons including the deaf. In terms of the deaf, they have their own culture that is shown through their language, the sign language to be precise. The “Deaf culture” is a term that denotes the values, habits, view of the world and laws of behaviour connected to their own world. If in vitro genetic screening of human embryos is used on embryos to avert the occurrence of a deaf condition on a person in life, then, what will this use have on the person? It shall take away his or her rights as described by the World Federation of the Deaf. Hence, on an ethics point of view, it shall not be ethical for in vitro genetic screening to be undertaken on a human embryo with a genetic condition that would lead to deafness as it is like taking away his or her rights. As far as deafness is regarded as a disability it is ethical to undertake measures like in vitro genetic screening of human embryo to hinder the conception of a child with genetic deafness. The understanding that deaf persons are a minority due to their culture and language does not change the argument that in vitro genetic screening of human embryos is ethically right. The discussion that it is unethical because it shall lead to the eradication of the “Deaf culture” or equally that undertaking of actions to make sure that deafness is ethical can only be upheld if deafness is not taken as a disability. Johnston (2005) states the idea that deafness is not a disability is not true. Hence, in vitro genetic screening against deafness is unethical. This goes on to support the World Federation of the Deaf view on ethics as stated in the previous paragraph (Johnston 2005). The views of deaf persons regarding genetic screening are quite different from those who are not affected by the condition. Because deaf people see themselves as different in terms of their culture, they infer that deafness is a condition that is supposed to be understood and taken care of. This is in opposition to the medical view that it is a condition that is supposed to be treated and prevented. Deaf persons are proud and positive to be deaf. Hence, they are very susceptible to the threats that they face. Any effort that is seen as a way of eradicating or dealing with the deaf condition is viewed as a threat. This means that it is ethically wrong for in vitro genetic screening to be undertaken bearing in mind the negative views of the deaf community towards such procedures. The Deaf community worries that the utilization of in vitro genetic screening on human embryos to avert conceiving a deaf child will lead to the decrease of the number of deaf children born. This it is argued will negatively impact on the viability of the Deaf community. Hence, ethically, it would be wrong to undertake in vitro genetic screening in such a case scenario (Middleton, Hewison & Mueller 1998). The issue at hand asks whether in vitro genetic screening of human embryos to select for embryos with deafness is a means of discrimination against disabled persons. The basic presumption of in vitro genetic screening is that its decrease of the occurrence of a harmful genetic condition and the disability it results in is an outright benefit. But, this assumption has been met with much criticism. A view such as the procedure saves parents the agony of going through the burden of bringing up a deaf child is wrong. Ethically, in vitro genetic screening tends to amplify the burden resulting from a disability such as deafness. It also delivers a negative message to the public which has a negative impact on people already living with deafness by raising the prejudice that they are already faced with (Rowley 1984). With these considerations in place, then in vitro genetic screening of human embryos is regarded unethical (Savulescu 2007). On the case whereby parents want their child to be devoid of deafness, hence bear a child who is not affected, gives parents the right to choice. This is a right, the right to choose decisions that are suitable and acceptable in your life if you are an adult. The right to choose an embryo without the genetic traits that would lead to the bearing of a deaf child is based on the knowledge that every pregnancy is dependent upon a clear test which indicates the preference of the parents (Draper & Chadwick 1999). Petersen (2005) argues that many arguments tend to focus on the unethical side of in vitro genetic screening of human embryos. He states that such opposition does not take into consideration the welfare of other persons who are conceived after in vitro genetic screening of the human embryo. When parents whether deaf or not regard in vitro genetic screening as an awareness of their reproductive options to be vital to their welfare, then they have a right to have their options respected and granted. He gives an example that the prospective parents who have a chance of having a child with a disability, in this case deaf parents who have the likelihood of getting a child who is also deaf, may want to get a child if only they can be able to ensure that the child is not deaf. Hence, it would be ethically wrong to deny such parents the right to have a child who has hearing capabilities and ethically right to ensure that they get a child who can hear. In the case whereby deaf parents agree to undertake in vitro genetic screening to select for an embryo with deafness then, the right interpretation has to be applied. These interpretations should be supported by the principle that in vitro genetic screening should only be availed if there is a known chance of the child having the genetic disease. A situation where there are persons affected in the family. In the case scenario, the parents are deaf. This when coupled with the availability of genetic counselling at that moment and in the future is ethically correct. In fact it avails the choice of the parents involved. It supports the said parents psychologically by giving them the chance to get what they want and think is right for them. As these parents are adults, then they are ethically obligated to conceive in a responsible way. This means that with the required information about what they want; then it is ethically right to get it (Parker 2007). If a parent was born deaf and he or she has undergone numerous problems in the cause of his or her life which they would not want their child to face, then such a parent is morally obliged to undertake extensive research to identify a means through which his or her child can be conceived without the risk of been affected. Such a means is in vitro genetic screening of the embryos to determine which embryo lacks the genetic traits that will result in deafness in his or her life. McMahan (2005) states that the effort to select the kind of an individual that parents would prefer to conceive is controversial especially if it involves “negative selection” which is choosing against an individual of a particular kind. In this case a deaf person. This is ethically wrong. Conclusion Based on the literature for and against the ethical issues resulting from in vitro genetic screening to select for embryos with a genetic condition it can be or not be ethically correct based on the conditions and reasons that influence the undertaking of the procedure to choose for or against a certain kind of a person with a particular characteristic. In a scenario where all other options have been exhausted and in vitro genetic screening is the last option, then it is ethically correct to undertake the procedure. But, if the procedure is based on unfounded reasons, discrimination, not wanting and dislike; then undertaking the procedure is ethically wrong because it violates human rights and leads to bias over what could probably have been. Bibliography Brunger, J. W., Murray, G. S., O’Riordan et al., 2000, ‘Parental Attitudes toward Genetic Testing for Pediatric Deafness,’ American of Journal of Human Genetics, 67 (6), pp. 1621 – 1625, NCBI [Online]. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1287942/ Draper, H., & Chadwick, R., 1999, ‘Beware! Preimplantation genetic diagnosis may solve old problems but it also raises new ones,’ Journal of Medical Ethics, 25 (2), pp. 114 – 120, RESEARCH4LIFE [Online]. Available at: http://hinarilogin.research4life.org/uniquesigwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/uniquesig0/pmc/articles/PMC479193/?page=1 Johnston, T., 2005, ‘In One’s Own Image: Ethics and the Reproduction Deafness,’ Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 10 (4), pp. 426 – 441, doi: 10.1093/deafed/eni040 McMahan, J., 2005, ‘Causing People to Be Disabled,’ Ethics, 116, 77- 99 JSTOR [Online]. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.1086/454367?uid=3738336&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&sid=21103793680733 Middleton, A., Hewinson, J., & Mueller, R. F., 1998, ‘Attitudes of Deaf Adults toward Genetic Testing for Hereditary Deafness,’ AJHG, 63 (4), pp. 1175 – 1180, http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/302060 Parker, M., 2007, ‘The best possible child,’ Journal of Medical Ethics, 33 (5), pp. 279 – 283, doi:  10.1136/jme.2006.018176 Petersen, T. S., 2005, ‘Just diagnosis? Preimplantation genetic diagnosis and injustices to disabled people,’ Journal of Medical Ethics, 31, pp. 231 – 234, doi:10.1136/jme.2003.006429 Rowley, P. T., 1984, ‘Genetic Screening: Marvel or Menace?’ Science, 225, pp. 138 – 144, doi: 10.1126/science.6729472 Savulescu, J., 2007, ‘In defence of Procreative Beneficence,’ Journal of Medical Ethics, 33 (5), pp. 284 – 288, doi:  10.1136/jme.2006.018184 The President’s Council on Bioethics, 2004, ‘SCREENING AND SELECTION FOR GENETIC CONDITIONS AND TRAITS,’ REPRODUCTION AND RESPONSIBILITY: THE REGULATIONS OF NEW BIOTECHNOLOGIES, Available at: https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/pcbe/reports/reproductionandresponsibility/chapter3.html World Federation of the Deaf, n.d., Deaf as a linguistic and cultural group, Available at: http://wfdeaf.org/human-rights/crpd/deaf-as-a-linguistic-and-cultural-group Read More