Pre-implantation genetics diagnosis enables successful embryo selection and can also lead to selective abortion. In a case, a lesbian couple decided to have a child who had a hearing disability like them by choosing a sperm donor who was deaf. The level of technology and advancement in health allow such parents to choose the Pre-implantation Genetic diagnosis to achieve the same result. According to the survey conducted by Genetics and Public policy center, the IVF-PGD clinics have already begun implementing these practices. This use of technology raises a lot of controversy since child welfare is affected if parents chose to have their child with a disability.
The utilitarian theory supports the use of prenatal tests and PGD for the safety and welfare of the unborn child (Vaughn, 2019, p.577). This theory supports the PGD idea with the notion that embryo selection results to increase in happiness and more benefits compared to the risks. However, a case where embryo selection involves planting a disability into an unborn child makes the utilitarian approach not viable. The harm lies in the idea that even though the parents of the child would be happy, the child might feel limited and may want to have the ability to hear. The Roman Catholic tradition also opposes the application of PGD. This is because these practices may result in violations of unborn children's rights. The Natural law theory aims that practicing genetic testing and PGD as ways to make the unborn children's life better; it thus would condemn any idea of creating deaf children.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Intentionally bringing a child with a disability into the world is considered immoral by most people in society. It goes against the natural idea of ensuring that the children born are free from any form of disabilities. However, when it comes to deafness, there are those that think that it does not lead to extreme suffering and is thus not moral harm. According to Brock, as long as a child does not experience suffering and is not limited to opportunity then embryo selection of a deaf child is not immoral (Vaughn, 2019, p. 603). However, it is important to think that even though parents have a right to choose their ideal children they also should consider that the children would have a life of their own and thus consider their welfare. In the perception that deafness is a culture rather than a disability then there is no harm in creating a deaf child.
The child's right to an open future is often altered by disability. Therefore, parents who chose to create children with a hearing disability may have their best interest in the deaf community but also contribute to disadvantaging their children's future. Children who are deaf acquire language at the same time as hearing kids. However, they face difficulty in choosing their career options. It is evident in the society that the deaf’ income is lower by thirty to forty percent of the national leverage (Vaughn, 2019, p. 600).
The state of education too for the deaf is insufficient and parents should consider these ideas before making a decision to have a deaf child. However, parents may have it all planned on how to ensure their children's lives are most comfortable. It is however, difficult to regard creating a deaf child as moral harm to parents who know how to make their children's life as comfortable as any other child. Deaf people in society do have limitations that would not exist if they were hearing people. It is thus important for parents to utilize the health advancement in prenatal testing and PGD to make the best decisions concerning their children.
References
Vaughn, M. L. (2019). Bioethics: Principles, issues, and cases .
