Description

On Ethics

 

Prenatal Genetic Testing

 

With our rapidly increasing knowledge about the human genome, we are being presented with new questions: Is it ethical to use (or not use) genetic information, and to what extent should it be used? Today, if you know that you are a carrier of certain genetic diseases, you no longer need to risk passing your bad genes to your children. Current reproductive technology allows you to use in vitro fertilization (IVF), where several eggs are fertilized by sperm in a petri dish that is, outside the body. After 3 days, when the resulting embryos are at the eight-cell stage, a single cell is removed and the DNA is extracted. With an advanced procedure known as preimplantation genetic haplotyping (PGH), the DNA can be tested for thousands of genetic defects and the healthiest embryos can be selected for implantation in the mother’s uterus.

 

As in a great deal of biomedical research, the methods used to treat disease are being coopted by the healthy population for other uses, and perhaps nowhere else are the ethical questions so rife as in the field of human reproduction. Using reproductive technologies to identify devastating genetic disease seems ethical and even laudable to many people, but the idea of using it to cater to personal preference is more debatable. One question is whether it is ethical to allow prospective parents to choose their offspring’s sex. This practice has been going on since the 1970s, when amniocentesis (the analysis of amniotic fluid from the mother’s uterus) made it possible to determine the sex of a fetus at 16–18 weeks of gestation. Amniocentesis originally was done for couples who were carriers of sex-linked genetic diseases, but both it and the less invasive ultrasound (creation of a two-dimensional image from vibrations in the uterus), developed in the 1980s, increasingly have been used for sex selection. Beginning in the 1990s, the sex of embryos used for IVF has been determined through genetic diagnosis, and many prospective parents choose the sex of the implanted embryos. More recently, Microsort, a private company, developed a sperm-sorting sex determination technology that boasts a 73 percent success rate for males and a 90 percent success rate for females.

 

Advocates of sex determination argue that choosing the sex of one’s child is a private decision that does not harm anyone. The most common objection to sex determination, however, is its discriminatory effect on women. In the few years that sex selection methods have been available, the male-to-female ratios in many countries have climbed dramatically. (The standard sex ratio is 105 baby boys born for every 100 baby girls, and any sex ratio over 106 is assumed to be evidence of sex control.) The CIA’s World Factbook’s figures for sex ratio at birth found skewed sex ratios in many countries around the world, for example, Kosovo (108), Georgia (108), San Marino (110), Grenada (111), Vietnam (111), Falkland Islands (111), Azerbaijan

(111), Hong Kong (112), India (112), Armenia (113), China (115), Curacao (115), and Liechtenstein (126). In societies with skewed male populations, each heterosexual male is less likely to find a mate, and the fear is that the society in general is likely to be more aggressive and suffer higher crime and greater social unrest. The patterning of violent crime, however, shows no simple association with sex ratio (Schacht, Rauch, & Mulder, 2014). While some study populations with higher adult male sex ratios have high violent crime, others do not.

Counterintuitively, one study using United Nations, World Health Organization, and INTERPOL data found that violent crime rates are higher in countries where females make up a higher

 

proportion of the adult population (Barber, 2000, 2009). In fact, adult male scarcity predicts greater youth assault rates, suggesting that adult men, especially fathers, play a vital role in adolescent development (Kruger, Aiyer, Caldwell, & Zimmerman, 2014).

 

One theory suggests that crime rates are dependent on several factors and takes into account the fact that not all male violence is mate competition and not all mate competition is violent (Schacht et al., 2014). These factors include how males compete for resources (steal, fight, or work harder), female choice of attributes (when males predominate, those who provide care are selected; see Kokko & Jennions, 2008), and behavioral differences in male mating strategies. Some effects of differing sex ratios on mating strategies include the following: With surplus women, men find themselves in demand and behave more promiscuously and lend little parental support (Schmitt, 2005), and rates of teen pregnancy (Barber, 2001) and single parenthood (Barber, 2004) are increased. On the other hand, when women are in short supply, female marriage rates are higher (Lichter, McLaughlin, Kephart, & Landry, 1992) and men who do have a mate, tend to be more vigilant guarding them, which may increase rates of domestic violence (D’Alessio & Stolzenberg, 2010). Certain cultures’ strong preference for a particular sex has led to personal choices that have, not just personal consequences, but also societywide effects.

 

Controlling the sex of one’s offspring is merely the beginning of what we may be able to control. Genes for traits such as eye color, skin color, height, temperament, personality, athleticism, and intelligence will be identified. When germline therapy becomes available (that is, changing the early embryonic genes, which are incorporated into all cells of the body and are passed on to future generations), scientists will be able to screen for particular genes and eventually to alter them. Eliminating genetic diseases is one thing, but in the future, children could be the specific results of their parents’ desires: We may soon be able to order up our children just as we do burgers at fast-food restaurants. Eugenics (the science of attempting to improve a group’s gene pool), whether it is in the hands of government or of individuals, raises a central question: By what standard are choices being made? In the case of sex determination, personal decisions appear to be based on cultural desires, religious beliefs, and so on. The consequences of such decisions are yet to be determined.

 

Ethics Discussion Questions

 

1.  Eugenics is a growing field of study that opens up the possibility of eliminating genetic diseases in the human population. Discuss the pros and cons of eugenics in determining characteristics of offspring and thereby changing future populations.

Concepts to Consider

 

• Genetic diseases (p. 68): Huntington’s disease is a genetic disorder that damages the nervous system and specific parts of the It affects thoughts and behavior.
• Subjective opinions: People have unique perspectives on events and ideas. It is possible that some people will find traits admirable while other will not share the same opinion. Who gets to decide what traits are favorable?
• Natural selection: Tampering with natural selection could impact our social and physical Altering specific genes could also negatively affect the genome as a whole.

 

2.  Argue for or against the use of sex determination, considering the larger picture of the human population as a whole and the potential consequences of making such a choice. What factors should we include to make such a decision?

 

Concepts to Consider

• Cultural biases: Depending on the culture, it is possible that people favor male offspring over female offspring, which would skew the population. This could lead to social imbalances, the consequences of which cannot fully be
• Superiority: If people are willing to make choices about the sex of their offspring, then it is possible that they consider one sex as Is this an issue or something inherent in humans?
• Environmental impact: According to statistics, there should be approximately 50 percent females and 50 percent males in the population. Skewing this ratio in either way is problematic in several ways.

Get Homework Help Now