1. Is it Morally Permissible to have a ‘Spare Parts’ Baby?
The Human Genetics Commission categorically advised that children created to serve, as ‘savior siblings’ to aid their sick brother or sister deserve the full package healthcare to ensure their well-being. The recommendation is intended to counter the tendency that may develop, of perception of a ‘savior sibling’ as spare parts bank. Spare parts babies are children born to meet specific needs of elder, ill sibling by serving as a donor of tissue matches that could cure them. Every child has a right to life and medical care. These rights are founded on legal frameworks and partially on morality. Questions are often raised of the objective of creating ‘savior siblings’, but current developments illustrate that spare parts babies are indeed designed to cure diseases suffered by young children. However, given scientists insatiable quest for knowledge that will lead to more profound discoveries, concerns have been raised about the ability of existing regulatory frameworks to limit how far the developments can go. The lack of consensus among experts on the appropriate ethical framework to use highlights the concept of ‘savior siblings’ to be morally unacceptable.
According to Raz, Schües, Wilhelm et al. (2017), the comparison of normative assessments of pre-implantation genetics diagnosis (PGD) perceptions on reproduction, acceptance or rejection of national policy and its underlying cultural an ethical premise reveled four major themes: loss of self-determination and autonomy; loss of dignity through instrumentalization; eugenics and euthanasia; and saving life. All these themes are applicable to ‘savior siblings’, but only saving life is applicable to the recipient. This is morally wrong because it violates the rights of ‘savior siblings’ to be treated equally and fairly. Under the circumstances, the ‘savior sibling’ can file for medical emancipation from their parents in a court of law.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
However, an issue that makes ‘savior siblings’ a morally unacceptable concept relates to the ethics of using genetic selection for purely social reasons. Proponents of the ‘savior sibling’ concept assert that such babies born health do not suffer serious or lasting harm or pain, and risk nothing of significance by donating bone marrow to their ailing sibling. On the contrary, the potential for misuse of the PGD process is overwhelming. Pre-implantation genetics diagnosis as a technique potentially violates the code of absolute respect for integrity of the human embryo. The technique allows for pretesting of embryos to determine their genetic make-up, and can be used to enhance genetic selection. Concerns about its potential to be used in the field of designer babies are justified, particularly in the wake of call for relaxing of rules on PGD and spare parts babies.
Strong, Jordens, Kerridge et al. (2011) argued that the ethical concerns about PGD provide clinicians with valid reasons for objecting to provide ‘savior sibling’ services. However, such decisions are largely dependent on non-disclosure of ‘savior sibling’ as an alternative to parents. In instances where there is disclosure, it should be based on the understanding of parents’ moral decisions that are based on the moral significance they attach to children, and specifically to sick children. The approach is critical to the transformation of bioethical discourses surrounding the care of children requiring bone marrow or cord blood transplantation. Nevertheless, it fails to address the issue of potential abuse of the PGD process. The process of repeatedly testing each embryo for genetic disorders in the quest to find a compatible match violates the ethics of human genetics. The possibility that parents would request for a match with enhanced genetic makeup is founded on chances of abortion because the conceived baby has a similar problem, or the child born having incompatible tissue. Therefore, there is an elevated risk of selective in-vitro fertilization being misused against the ethics of human genetics and enhancement.
2. Do you think Human Enhancement, as Discussed in Transhumanism is a Form of Eugenics?
Human enhancement as evidenced in transhumanism is a form of eugenics. The only difference between it and eugenics, as initially known is the manner in which the enhancement is to be accomplished. Transhumanism seeks to adopt a clear and transparent approach to account for the need to enhance humans, contrary to eugenics, which was founded on outright discrimination of given segments of the society. However, the two have some commonalities, and decrease in favor for eugenics corresponds to increased embrace of transhumanism. Paul (2014) opined that the history of eugenics simply cannot provide the kind of direct guidance that many participants in current debates would like. The opinion is a reflection that despite the implications of eugenics on policy, insights that can be gleamed from is history is subtle and indirect. Transhumanism is just a policy lesson for contemporary reproductive genetics that draws from the considerable interpretive flexibility of eugenics, but is derived from essentially the same historical facts.
Despite the use of different techniques, eugenics and transhumanism have one distinct goal, human enhancement. Eugenics as applies to humans refers to the selection of desirable heritable characteristics for the improvement of future generations. The founding father of eugenics, Francis Galton, based the concept of Darwin’s theory of natural selection. Galton’s thinking was that through eugenics, more suitable races and strains of blood could a chance of prevailing fast over the less suitable. The survival for the fittest concept was the fuel that powered the development of eugenics into a scientific field of study. Eugenics failed because it violated ethical considerations that governed research and application of human genetics.
Transhumanism on the other hand is an acceptable form of eugenics that conforms to established ethics and code of conducts in relation to human enhancement. This is evident in its definition as a science that seeks to eradicate undesirable traits such as ageing, explore ways of augmenting the human bodies and minds through technology, merging with machines, and remaking the human body to image of its highest ideals. Transhumanism adopts an incremental approach through the use of devices to boost human functionality. However, the ultimate goal, which could be achieved through merging of man and machine, is the production of humans with vastly increased intelligence, strength, and lifespans – the production of human gods. The concept has the same ulterior motive as eugenics.
The pertinent question about transhumanism as a technique for enhancement of humans is on the criteria to be used to decide who is to be enhanced. At face value, the use of devices such as hearing aids, sensors, and prosthetics appears plausible, but who will decide who is to be merged with the machine for intelligence to be enhanced? Would all humans have access to such enhancement? What happens to those who cannot afford the technology and science to transform into the human-god state of intelligence, strength, and health? The answers to these questions would at best be speculative, which reveals the strong association between transhumanism and eugenics.
The developments being witnessed under the transhumanism movement are synonymous with those in the US after the establishment of the Eugenics Records Office. The resulting studies concluded that people deemed to be unfit more often came from families that were poor, low in social standing, immigrant, and/or minority. Eugenicists attributed undesirable characteristics to genetics rather than lack of resources. Consequently, people with mental illness, alcoholism, chronic poverty, blindness, deafness, feeble-mindedness, and promiscuity were targeted for sterilization (Genetics Generation, 2015). People of color who were largely perceived to have these categories of unwanted traits were targeted for sterilization without their consent. Transhumanism does not have frameworks in place to ensure the process of human enhancement is not abused, and is founded on similar eugenics concepts.
3. Which Ethical Theory do you find most Plausible?
The most important ethical perspective in human enhancement that also applies to medical ethics relates to the burgeoning ability to manipulate genotypes and phenotypes. Experts warn that this is likely to be the outcome of utilization of diverse information on genetics of individuals and populations, where control is likely to present a challenge. Moreover, such information influences genetic contribution to ethical and political traits and behaviors that shape understanding of self and social institutions. Allhoff, Lin, Moor et al. (2011) cite an infamous quote by Albert Camus that “man is the only creature that refuses to what he is.” The observation is founded on an understanding that over the years, man has shown relentless adaptation to the environment. Human enhancement through science and technology is likely to disrupt this natural phenomenon from occurring.
Nature and environment balance in a manner that is incomprehensible in most instances. The application of genotype and phenotype manipulation to develop superior humans and animals is a threat to other biodiversity. Nature has its way of regulating how different species evolve, but acceleration of the process using artificial techniques has unprecedented effects. Some factions have argued that the current issues of global warming and climate change are outcomes of exceedingly high consumption rate by some countries that to satiate their greed, they have to produce more without regard for the environment. A human-god being created through enhancement cannot be a fit to the environment because of the potential that they would evolve beyond what scientists envisioned.
Similar concepts exist where animals and plants are concerned. The debate about genetically modified organisms continues to elicit mixed reactions. The process is understandable from the utilitarian perspective, but fails to address a number of ethical concerns. In most cases, the process for the development of GMOs and related information need to be publicized to alleviate some of these concerns. However, enhancement processes continue to be clouded in mystery making the processes suspect.
An aspect of critical importance is the process of experimentation. As seen in the case of ‘savior siblings’, balancing between the benefits and detriments is an important element. A similar approach is adopted when using animals for research by balancing the suitability of the model for human medicine against the possible harm to the animal from the procedure in terms and the quality of its lifetime and experience. The ethical principle governing manipulation of genotypes and phenotypes is important in recognition of humans as equal, a similar approach that should be applied to animals. While enhancement through genetic screening and modification can be instrumental in the treatment of diseases and other vulnerabilities species may be exposed to, it cannot be used as a method of natural selection. Such a practice interferes with the genetic pool of species. The enhancement may protect the species from a particular disease, but make them vulnerable to others. However, the main challenge lies in the development of regulatory frameworks. Proponents of human enhancement may argue that the process allows the expression of freedom of choice, but even under a democratic society, regulation is key process and human genetics is no exception.
References
Allhoff, F., Lin, P., Moor, J., & Weckert, J. (2010). Ethics of human enhancement: 25 questions & answers. Studies in Ethics, Law, and Technology , 4 (1).
Genetics Generation. (2015). Introduction to eugenics. Retrieved from http://knowgenetics.org/history-of-eugenics/.
Paul, D. B. (2014). What was wrong with eugenics? Conflicting narratives and disputed interpretations. Science & Education , 23 (2), 259-271.
Raz, A., Schües, C., Wilhelm, N., & Rehmann-Sutter, C. (2017). Saving or Subordinating Life? Popular Views in Israel and Germany of Donor Siblings Created through PGD. Journal of Medical Humanities , 38 (2), 191-207.
Strong, K. A., Jordens, C. F., Kerridge, I. H., Little, J. M., & Ankeny, R. A. (2011). It's time to reframe the savior sibling debate. AJOB Primary Research , 2 (3), 13-25.
