Legalization of the Genetically Chosen Feature of the Child - Research Paper Example

Task:   Whether it should be legalized to genetically choose the feature of your own child? Introduction Should parents be allowed to freely choose the features of their children such as hair and eye color? There has been a heated debate concerning this issue and various scholars have come up with their views concerning it. Among the scholars are doctors who have based their arguments on medical, biological and nursing principles in coming up with the appropriate solution to the issue itself. Psychologists have also shown up basing their explanations on the fact that genetic intervention affects the reasoning and the rationality of the individuals involved. Human rights advocates have also stepped in saying that it is unlawful for the initial genetic structure and composition of a child to be altered or interfered with in any way. Lastly, religious leaders have also come up strongly against genetic intervention basing their arguments on various religious books. Educated and experienced researchers have gone further to compile literary articles that have been used in research fields by students who have shown upending a solution to the above question interests in learning and finding the solution to the above question. This research question is very crucial as it forms the basis of comprehension and cogent reasoning of various intellects to come up with a rational conclusion. Origin of Genetic Intervention Human genetics has always raised fundamental questions across a wide range or variety of disciplines. Due to this, there has been a continuous infusion of capital, talent, and time in a bid to come up with certain important characteristics of human genetic composition. Over the past two decades, researches in various matriculation institutions, government based organizations and at individual level have been in progress with an aim of coming up with or targeting the same goal. As understood, research is not always perfect, these researchers and organizations have always centered their research on the original theses by other researchers. For instance, most of the researches that have been done in this field have been based on the findings of the Dutch Monk, Gregory Mendel’s Genetic Determinism, for instance, the law of inheritance (Edelson 28). An example of a nation that has taken the matter to a greater height compared to other countries is the US. Research reveals that its government has invested approximately $3 billion over the past one and a half decade in the Human Genome project. This project is aimed at decoding or comprehending the language of human genes. Its final aim is to come up with identification of the genetic components of diseases, physical as well as intellectual traits. All these practices paved the way for thorough and continuous research in the field of genetics. In addition to the above, genetic intervention also originated from the UK following the birth of a baby girl named Louis Brown in 1978. Though looking normal, Louis began her life through an introduced artificial technique. She was the first embryo that was conceived outside her mother’s womb successfully. He was regarded as the “first test-tube baby” (Lee 87). However, other researchers claimed that Louis actually developed inside her mother’s womb through the process of in vitro fertilization. Other researchers, in the process of treating genetically related diseases, came up with an observation that intervention of human genetic composition could be possible to allow correctional changes in some contents so that desired quality and features of human being could be achieved. This could be done in a laboratory. The implication is that the features of a child yet to be born could easily be determined in a scientific laboratory. Conceptual Categories Genetic Intervention and Parental attitudes The first researcher who showed a lot of interest in the question was Fordham. He argued that, “Disabled parents who want disabled children are too few in number and diverse in purpose to serve as the poster children for the debate over genetic intervention” (Fordham 1529). He goes on to state that there is a possibility of the existence of parents with disabilities imposing recklessly and intentionally pain and distress on their children. From this, it is evident that Fordham does not give a back up to the practice. He is against it basing his argument on the probabilities of parents engaging in some unlawful and unethical practices that might injure the child during his or her growth. Fordham goes on to say that there is no need for societies to have tort laws that meet the remote possibilities involving the practices. On the other hand, sociological experts refute the claim that parents may intentionally interfere with the health of their children stating that the bond between a child and his or her mother is tight and does not allow any harmful practice or intention from the mother. Imperfect Babies Greenhill, Hope, and McDermott in their magazine reveal the findings of the pro-life campaigners concerning genetic intervention. “Pro-life campaigners claim it is morally wrong to weed out imperfect babies” (Greenhill, Hope &McDemott 13). Basing their arguments on the psychological perspectives, the pro-life campaigners believe that genetic modification greatly affects the baby’s original psychological content. Since psychology covers a lot, including the reasoning abilities such as the presence of common sense, the practice will seriously interfere with the individual reasoning. Interference with a person’s reasoning ability implies dangerous practices that may harm his or her life. Other professionals argue that genetic intervention only affects the person’s genes not the personality; therefore, it cannot interfere with the psychological content of an individual. Habermas claim that “manipulating human nature puts at risk human freedom” (Habermas 4). Manipulation of the human gene involves the changing of a person’s behavior or character completely. This implies that the individual is restricted to carrying out particular activities. This limitation is what restricts the person’s behavior. Genetic Intervention and favoritism in society Biggs, for his part, argues that the genetic intervention is done at the individual level and leads to the upbringing of certain embryos that, in turn, will lead the emergence of unfairness or discrimination among the embryos. Reasoning in a cogent way, an individual will always show preference to anything or anybody whom she or he likes most. In this case, the foster parents or parents to the genetically modified child will definitely show favoritism to the kid compared to others. Morales Micheli argues that human cloning will remain unavoidable as long as technology in the science, especially in the medical field, continues to progress (Morales 89). He argues that science is one of the main factors that have been proven responsible for the development and increase in genetic intervention. Micheli’s argument has received credit from many scientists and concerned individuals who believe that the development of science is what has resulted in many curiosities for many scientists, prompting them to go ahead and come up with a way on how to manipulate human genetics into desired forms. Peterson argues, “Human life cannot be fully described by what happens at the level of physics or genetics” (Peterson 32). This is because the description can be that of an instance of molecular movement and does not, in any way, mean that an individual has fully comprehended all that has occurred within that particular instance. For instance, the process that involves the conversion of lactic acid to ATP can be further explained as part of muscular contractions and the release of a particular muscle. Considering the fact that there are a number of biologists and medicine specialists, description of human life is possible with their help. In addition, those who carry out genetic intervention are experienced doctors equipped with enough knowledge of the human body system. It is therefore irrational to believe that what happens in the human body cannot be explained in a clear or succinct manner. He also states, “It is possible to clone the genes of a person, but not his or her personalities” (Peterson 41). Genetic Intervention and Civil Laws As Fordham and Biggs argue, taking part in genetic intervention actually implies breaking state laws. It is against the civil law in any society for any societal member to indulge in any practice that interferes with the human nature. Genetic intervention interferes with human nature as it interrupts or alters the intended genetic composition of the person. Biggs’ claim that there is a possibility of the emergence of people who will be quite different and more preferable affirms that there will be an existence of inequality within the societies. Inequality arises since the children who will be arising from the genetic intervention will receive more favoritism than those who will be naturally born with the natural features and characteristics. Continuation of favoritism in a given society will automatically lead to a society consisting of two distinct groups of individuals, that is, the favorable or the most preferred society and the unfavorable natural society. Since favoritism is one of the main sources of different evils in many parts of the globe, this practice will in turn lead to a society whereby corruption, nepotism, tribalism, racism, and regionalism control most of the activities. It is therefore plausible that, according to the two researchers, such genetic intervention will lead to the formation of a politically and unlawfully imbalanced society infested with various social evils. Increased Science: The fundamental cause of genetic intervention Morales cite and claim that genetic intervention mainly results from the development of technology in the scientific fields. They argue that technology is a factor of development and is unavoidable. Therefore, to them, the practice depends solely on technology, which is very necessary for all the societies. Any society requires technology for development in various sectors. Without technology, development will be stunted and the economy of such a society or nation will remain in the doldrums. To these researchers, technology can never be interfered with in a bid to stop or curb genetic intervention. In fact, it would take a person of unsound or non-cogent rationale to barn or stop the development of technology so that the practice is reduced or stopped completely. This is because technology not only plays a part in the medical and health fields, but also in other aspects of development in many societies. In Darnovosky’s book, Hayes Stated, Misapplication of various technologies could “exacerbate the existing inequalities, and reinforce the existing modes of discrimination” (Darnovsky 103). If individuals were to be allowed to choose the characteristics of their children, then there would be no fair society. The whole society would be a bunch of copy pasted individuals. Who deserves Genetic Intervention? Whereas Fordham argues that genetic intervention may cause some intentional interruption of the genetic composition or inclusion of undesirable features in many people involved, Mark Sauer states that PGD (Preimplanatation Genetic Diagnosis) causes a lot of problems to people that are involved in it. Sauer clarifies his claim that it becomes a challenge, especially to the doctors, how to choose the right person whom they can genetically interfere with without interrupting other body systems. From this point of view, it is clear that the two researchers argue from one fundamental point of view, which is ethics in work place as well as in the society at large. The idea of disabled parents demanding genetic intervention in their children so that they may have the same features as theirs implies unethical and unfair behaviors by parents. Some parents may do this intentionally to harm their children and this may not well be in line with the existing societal rules and norms. Conclusion The above research provides a fundamental background to the process of coming up with a cogent decision-making on whether this practice is good and should be encouraged or not. However, there are some findings posted by various researchers that are incomplete or lack evidence-based arguments. Most parents prefer genetic intervention mainly because it changes and determines the characters of individuals. However, most of the researches mentioned above prove that genetic intervention does not in any way affect the characters of personalities of individuals, it only affects the genes. Work Cited Brigham A., Fordham. “Disabilitiy and Designer Babies.” Valparaiso University Law review 45.4(2011):1473-1528. Web. 3 Feb. 2012. http://scholar.valpo.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2219&context=vulr Edelson, Edward. Gregor Mendel: And the Roots of Genetics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. Print. Fenton Elizabeth. “Liberal Eugenics and Human Nature: against Habermas.” Hasting Center Report. 36.6(2006):35-42. JSTOR. Web. 02/18/2012. http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/4625719?uid=3738336&uid=2&uid=4&sid=476 8872440897 Greenhill, Sam & Hope, Jenny & McDermott, Nick. “Britain’s first cancer-free designer baby born after being screened for deadly gene”: Mail online. January 29, 2009. Web. April 10, 2012. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1110244/Britains-cancer-free-designer-baby-born-screened-deadly-gene.html Morales Micheli, Nestor. “Psychological Aspects of Human Cloning and Genetic Manipulation: the identity and uniqueness of human beings.” Reproductive Biomedicine Online. Vol.19 (2009):43-50. Web. 02/24/2012 Peterson, James. Genetic Turning Points: The Ethics of Human Genetic Intervention. Wyoming: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2001. Print. www.chausa.org/workarea//DownloadAsset.aspx?id=5848 Sauer, Mark et al. "Anticipating Issues Related To Increasing Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis Use: A Research Agenda." Reproductive Biomedicine Online (Reproductive Healthcare Limited) 17.1 (2008): 33-42. Academic Search Complete. Web. 16 Feb. 2012. http://hplusbiopolitics.wordpress.com/category/genetic-modification/ Lee, Ellie. Designer Babies: Where Should We Draw The Line. New York: Houlder & Stoughton, 2002. Print. Darnovsky, Mark. Center for Genetics and Society. New York, NY: Sage Publishers, 2000. Print. Biggs, Hazel. Healthcare Research Ethics and Law: Regulation, Review And Responsibility. New YORK, NY: Routledge, 2010. Print. Read More