As technology advances in all fields, various implementations of the innovations shake morality to the core. Technological advancements have enabled human beings to reach uncharted waters that initially were just dreams. PGD and PGS are some of the critical reproductive medicine technologies. They were initially developed to alleviate the development of hereditary diseases, but other uses were soon realized. It is now possible to tinker the genetic makeup of a baby immediately after fertilization. In the case of John and Karen, they want a deaf baby and decided to use genetic typing techniques to achieve this. Two of the four embryos met their desired criteria and were implanted, while the other two were discarded based solely on the fact that the children would not be deaf. The article will incorporate the principles of biomedical ethics to try and understand whether it is ethical to deliberately seek to have a child with a disability, in this case; deafness.
Four principles of biomedical ethics exist; respect for autonomy, justice, beneficence, and finally non-maleficence. Looking into the principle of respect for autonomy, it ensures the person seeking to utilize the biomedical activities is allowed to make personal decisions without the influence of others. This is based on the medical practice which requires patients to decide their medical decisions in cases where a deadlock occurs. John and Karen were entitled to this principle, thereby were in a position to determine the future of their embryos. Furthermore, one may suggest that in such a case, it is the children who are entitled to this right. That is however not the case. The law requires parents to make decisions for their children until they reach a stage where they can make sound choices. John and Karen, as the parents, made the choice.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The next principle is justice which complements respect for autonomy since it suggests that a person should act impartially without the coercion of another. What this means is that John and Karen were free to decide on the fate of their embryos without anyone else trying to convince them otherwise. Their clergyman was against their decision since he felt that the action could be considered as an immoral abortion. The situation above acknowledges the fact that religion and culture are essential perspectives that can influence biomedical ethics. Despite the clergyman’s opposition, John and Karen were supposed to make their impartial choice without being persuaded to lean on a particular side by anyone, and they sure did make their decision. The decision can, however, be termed as unfair since they put their personal vendetta first for wanting to have a deaf baby, rather than accept the situation as it is and give all the embryos a chance. This principle dictates that the action was unethical since justice lacked for all the persons involved, more so, the ‘un-deaf’ embryos.
Thirdly, beneficence which requires that all biomedical activities should be geared towards helping others. Biomedicine, just like any other field of medicine, requires an individual to be aware of the consequences of their choices. Medical decisions are only allowable if the patient is fully aware of the consequences. John and Karen were informed about the status of their embryos. All four embryos were perfectly healthy, and it is only the two that did not fit their criteria. The decision to implant the two deaf ones and discard the ‘un-deaf’ ones was a harmful one as it resulted to death, hence unethical.
Finally, the principle of non-maleficence which complements beneficence since they all suggest that no harm should befall a person based on their ability to make a particular decision. This principle can challenge John and Karen’s decision since what they did in their pursuit for deaf infants resulted in grave consequences, hence unethical. It is not easy to bioengineer human life and the actions result to serious consequences as evidenced by John and Karen’s situation. Sometimes seeking specific traits, for instance deafness, can be considered unethical since not all embryos fit the criteria and some will need to be discarded. Therefore, it is unethical to seek a child with a particular disability.
