Genetic screening is performed using various laboratory techniques to ascertain the presence of genetic conditions or disorders, as well as to identify individuals at risk of developing diseases based on their genetic traits. People often choose these tests if there is a family history of illnesses such as breast cancer or Huntington’s disease. However, prenatal genetic testing has become a controversial subject in society, with proponents emphasizing its considerable potential.
While there is a perception that genetic testing, when utilized correctly, can enhance and prolong human life, it also brings up worries about the potential termination of pregnancies involving fetuses with conditions like ASD or Down Syndrome. This could result in the elimination of children with special needs, suggesting a lack of value for individuals with disabilities in our society, which is an incorrect assumption.
Critics of genetic prenatal screening are actively opposing the progress of these tests and conducting a campaign against their utilization (Parker, 2006). Gaining information about genetic abnormalities holds inherent importance as it enhances understanding, allows for earlier and better diagnosis, enables effective interventions, and helps minimize negative consequences caused by these irregularities. Detractors of prenatal diagnosis predominantly contend that identifying fetal deficiencies may lead to widespread abortion, reflecting a negative outlook on human life.
Instead of attempting to hinder parents’ access to a test that will eventually become available in society or denying their lawful right to choose, even if we may disagree with their decisions, it would be more beneficial to concentrate on fostering hope and enhancing the likelihood of a positive result. This can be accomplished by showcasing that children with autism, Down syndrome, or other disabilities can live joyful and prosperous lives (Parker, 2006). In this essay, I will explore both the advantageous and disadvantageous consequences of genetic screening and prenatal testing.
This text will examine the current and potential controversies surrounding the subject, investigating their effects on society and the idea of an ideal child. It will specifically explore ethical considerations, moral values, and how the growth of health-focused social movements has complicated previously straightforward solutions. The contemporary understanding of parenthood has increased our desire for children who are without significant imperfections. In comparison to earlier generations, individuals in today’s society generally have fewer children. Consequently, we all aspire for our offspring to thrive, experience happiness, and achieve remarkable accomplishments in their lives.
As time passes, our moral connection with each of our children is increasingly prioritized and seen as a positive aspect. However, this can also result in less inclination to care for a child whose needs become overwhelming or whose life presents more challenges than desired (Murray, 1996). Therefore, it is crucial to set boundaries regarding prenatal diagnosis. Should limitations be imposed on prospective parents’ access to genetic information? Or would that violate their right to be informed about their own bodies? Medically speaking, congenital abnormalities account for 20-25% of prenatal deaths.
Advancements in genetic and medical science have allowed for the detection and prevention of different disorders during pregnancy (Medscape.com, 2011). This progress can potentially save a child’s life and eradicate birth defects. Nevertheless, there are ethical considerations regarding prenatal testing that are still unclear. Nonetheless, these tests can be utilized responsibly to bring advantages. In numerous cases, prenatal testing aids in easing anxiety by confirming the healthiness of babies. Additionally, being informed in advance about a potential birth defect grants parents valuable time to prepare for meeting their child’s specific requirements.
Parents have the chance to mourn and create a connection with their unborn baby before birth by using prenatal testing. If there is a serious problem, they can arrange for delivery in a hospital with specialized doctors. Despite these benefits, there are also drawbacks to prenatal testing. Wrong diagnoses can cause unnecessary worry, and it may also push the mother towards considering abortion. However, disregarding ethical concerns, many couples who want healthy children are using different prenatal diagnosis options and finding them helpful.
Nonetheless, those who oppose genetic tests are resolved to persist in the fight. These individuals firmly advocate for the safeguarding of human life and given that we have not yet found remedies for all genetic ailments, the termination of affected fetuses will remain prevalent in our society. Furthermore, this scenario also gives rise to apprehensions regarding eugenics, like employing abortions as a means to eradicate a disease and wipe out an entire population that does not fulfill society’s criteria for an ideal community (Arc.org, 1997).
It is speculated that in the future, it will be feasible to change eye color, hair color, and other physical characteristics. Will there be an increase in prejudice against individuals with undesirable genetic traits? Despite opposition from some, most people are in favor of these tests. In the United States, prenatal testing and selective abortion to prevent genetic abnormalities are widely embraced. A study carried out in 1995 discovered that 79% of Americans support abortions as a choice for fetuses with severe abnormalities (Botkin, 1995).
In Morejon’s (1996) study, it is stated that the arrival of a baby with a serious genetic ailment can bring about various negative consequences such as distress, psychological and emotional damage, pain, missed opportunities, restricted freedom, loneliness, and financial burdens. Regardless of ethical considerations or personal beliefs, prenatal testing always involves making a crucial choice between life and death. As a result of these tests, individuals are increasingly choosing to end pregnancies for conditions that do not have clear-cut outcomes.
Approximately 3% of cases involve the detection of sex chromosome abnormalities, with a study showing that 60% of affected babies were terminated. However, most of these babies would have had a normal life span, despite potential fertility and behavioral issues. Many parents choose abortion when faced with these decisions due to a lack of understanding about these diagnoses and immediate assumptions. Pressure from family, friends, society, and even physicians often leads to the termination of pregnancies. Unfortunately, the value placed on disabled individuals’ lives is frequently disregarded.
The use of prenatal testing in modern society seems to function as a way to determine who is worthy of living and who is not. This path is concerning because it entails judging individuals for something beyond their control. According to Francis Collins, the Director of The National Centre for Human Genome Research, it is probable that each person carries approximately four or five defective genes and several others that are imperfect, which leaves us vulnerable to various risks as we get older (Arc.org, 1997). If this statement proves accurate, it implies that everyone has genetic impairments and could potentially be subject to discrimination.
The availability of this technology during our birth raises the question of whether numerous individuals would have been terminated due to their genetic disorder risk. Given our progressing knowledge of the human genome and gene manipulation capabilities, it may soon be achievable to generate or engineer a baby. In time, people might possess the capacity to opt for features like hair color, height, personality traits, and even gender. They will have the option to decide if they are inclined towards music, sports, or literature.
The concerns expressed by critics are centered on the point where humanity loses its essence and becomes reduced to genetic makeup. There is fear that this could resemble the actions of the Nazis in eliminating those perceived as weak and inferior, or result in a society divided between genetically privileged and underprivileged individuals similar to that depicted in Gautama’s works. Therefore, I argue that our priorities are misplaced; instead, we should concentrate on identifying genes that can improve our children’s lives in a predictable manner (Practical Ethics, 2011). Our society is now entering a phase where science fiction is becoming a reality.
We must enhance our education in light of advancing research. The volume of information uncovered during our lives will exceed all previous scientific breakthroughs. We are at the brink of a forthcoming era where specific illnesses can be treated and eradicated. In this age of research, it is crucial for individuals to remain well-informed. Ignorance facilitates the rapid spread of fear, and scientifically knowledgeable members of society have a duty to educate others. We need only remember the panic that ensued upon the birth of Dolly, the first genetically cloned sheep.
There was a call for an end to this type of research amid concerns about the possibility of people cloning themselves (ornl.gov, 2007). I personally agree with the majority of the population. While in an ideal world, all couples would undergo carrier screening before conception, I support the use of prenatal tests to identify severe abnormalities in the fetus. I would never want to subject a child to a disease with severe and detrimental consequences. To me, the benefits outweigh the costs of bringing a helpless baby into this world who may end up with a serious and fatal condition.
While awaiting the development of an effective treatment, I emphasize the importance of testing. However, I maintain an optimistic perspective on the future. I have faith in our potential to find cures for currently deemed incurable diseases, thus greatly enhancing human well-being. The primary concern is whether limitations should be imposed on the information parents receive from genetic testing when it becomes available to everyone. Certain disorders progressively worsen and cast a shadow over affected children’s lives, while others impose substantial challenges on both children and their parents.
The aforementioned conditions are not simply matters of distaste but have significant effects on the potential for the child, its parents, or its siblings to thrive. Additionally, the desire to avoid raising disabled children is not an insensitive or selfish statement as it may be perceived by some. It is a genuine and comprehensible reaction to the concern that a disabled child may not be able to fulfill the nurturing desires that many women have, which involve giving the best possible care and support, bringing joy to others, making contributions to the world, and making us proud (Gregoire, 2009).
The discussions and debates surrounding various issues are rooted in The Human Genome Project, an international effort to map and sequence all human cell genes. A substantial part of the project’s funding has been allocated to addressing ethical, legal, and social implications of genetic research. Consequently, a widely accepted set of principles has been developed to prevent genetic discrimination, ensure DNA laboratory quality, educate doctors on genetic data utilization, and provide informed consent guidelines for research.
The ultimate question is whether we should eliminate the most extensive technology ever known to man or strive to improve it and create a better future. Taking risks is necessary to improve anything.
References:
- Parker, I. (2006). “Shades of Grey: Thoughts on Prenatal Genetic Testing”. Available at www.a-shade-of-grey.blogspot.com/2006/07/thoughts-on-prenatal-genetic-testing.html. Accessed on the 11-12-2011.
- Murray, T. (1996). “The worth of a child”.
The following sources contain information on prenatal diagnosis, genetic disorders, and genetic discrimination:
– University of California Press: California. [link]
– Medscape.com (2011). “Prenatal Diagnosis for Congenital Malformations and Genetic Disorders”. Available at [link]. Accessed on the 12-12-2011.
– Gregoire, S. (2009). “To Test or Not to Test” Available at [link]. Accessed on the 12-12-2011.
– Arc.org (1997). “Genetic Discrimination”. Available at www.the.arc.org/depts/gbr03.html. Accessed on the 12-12-2011.
-Botkin, J, (1995). “Federal Privacy and Confidentiality”. Hastings Centre Report: Hastings.
-Morejon, D. (1996) “Commentary” Hastings Centre Report: Hastings.
-Practical Ethics (2011). “Preimplantation Genetic Screening: One Step Closer to the Perfect Baby”. Available at [link]. Accessed on the 13-12-2011.
-Ornl.gov (2007). “Tech Resources”. Available at www.ornl.gov/techresources/human_genome/public/hgn/v8n3/07/press.html. Accessed on the 14-12
