Preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) screens IVF embryos for genetic abnormalities before implantation. Embryos are often checked for Down syndrome, a chromosomal abnormality caused by an extra chromosome 21. PGD selects embryos without Down syndrome for implantation, avoiding afflicted embryos. The ethics of screening for Down syndrome are controversial. Disability campaigners say screening fosters discrimination and harms diversity. Some argue that reproduction is private and that parents have the freedom to choose the healthiest child. This essay claims that screening embryos for Down syndrome increases reproductive autonomy and parental choice, making it ethical. People can choose to have children and make decisions about embryos and fetuses under procreative liberty. Screening helps parents avoid needless suffering as part of their ethical duty to provide their children with the best life. While restrictions apply and counseling should be offered, screening embryos for Down syndrome before implantation is ethical.
Arguments
Constantly dedicating one’s children to the greatest life is the core of parental duty, ingrained in society and ethics. Beyond food, shelter, and education, this obligation includes health and well-being. Diana F. et al. (2023) emphasize that parents want to give their children the best possibilities for success, happiness, and well-being. This quest, generally considered the essence of parental love, entails making decisions that may affect the child’s health and genetics. In vitro fertilization (IVF) and preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) allow parents to protect their future children’s health. Screening embryos for genetic abnormalities like Down syndrome is a profound parental duty. Reproductive autonomy lets parents prevent genetic abnormalities from causing their children lifelong problems (Diana F. et al., 2023). By choosing embryo screening, parents are exercising their reproductive rights and performing a fundamental duty to protect their kids from preventable genetic disorders.
Reproductive technology, especially embryo screening, has expanded genetics and fertility research. Polygenic embryo screening (PES) is a recent advancement in preimplantation genetic testing, as Lázaro-Muñoz et al. (2021) noted. This technology has made embryo screening more accessible, accurate, and trustworthy, enabling the diagnosis of more genetic diseases, including complicated polygenic disorders. Polygenic embryo screening uses genome-wide association research and genotyping to understand better embryo genetics (Lázaro-Muñoz et al., 2021). Technology advances empower prospective parents to make important health decisions for their children. Advancements in technology have made reproductive autonomy more accessible and reliable, empowering parents to make educated decisions based on the latest medical discoveries.
Embryo screening is crucial for preventing genetic abnormalities and their health consequences. Prenatal diagnostic treatments reduce hereditary illnesses and improve health outcomes, according to Kaye, D. K. (2023). Screening for disorders like Down syndrome helps identify and select embryos lacking genetic abnormalities, reducing the risk of health and developmental issues. Down syndrome, caused by an extra chromosome 21, can cause cardiac defects, respiratory and hearing disorders, Alzheimer’s disease, pediatric leukemia, and thyroid conditions. By screening for such disorders, prenatal diagnostic methods may prevent severe problems. To prevent rather than treat health disorders, this proactive strategy supports medical goals (Kaye, 2023). The screening improves child health and decreases family and healthcare system stress and cost. In essence, prenatal diagnostics advance tailored and preventative healthcare.
The ethical acceptance of genetic screening has evolved. After initial skepticism and ethical issues, the practice has gained acceptability as understanding and trust in its benefits have developed. Diana et al. (2023) examine how genetic screening has changed social and ethical views. Once frowned upon, it is today considered a responsible and ethical medical practice. Historically, practices like embryo screening were often controversial, labeled as eugenics, and met with fierce opposition. The narrative has changed as doctors and society have learned more about these technologies’ benefits and drawbacks (Diana F. et al., 2023). Genetic screenings like Down syndrome are becoming routine medical procedures. This ethical shift shows that medical ethics evolves with technology and society. The significance of reassessing ethical positions in light of new scientific information and societal requirements is stressed.
Counterarguments
Possible eugenics is a significant argument against Down syndrome screening in embryos. Diana F. et al. (2023) suggest that such approaches may resemble eugenics, which uses selective breeding to improve human genetics. This comparison raises severe ethical issues because eugenics has been related to discrimination and human rights abuses. The concern is that selecting embryos based on genetic qualities could lead to a society that values certain traits over others, allowing genetics to determine an individual’s worth. Modern embryo screening focuses on health and well-being rather than genetic ‘superiority.’ However, the ethical implications of this parallel are significant and require careful consideration and robust ethical guidelines to ensure that reproductive technologies are not misused in a way that echoes these dark chapters of history (Diana F. et al., 2023).
Another critical concern is the potential for stigmatization of individuals with certain genetic conditions as a result of widespread embryo screening. Choosing embryos based on genetic features might stigmatize people with Down syndrome, the argument goes. Due to prenatal screening, these disorders are becoming less prevalent, which might lead to social exclusion and diminished care and resources (Collier, 2012). Families who continue pregnancies with known genetic disorders may encounter censure or lack of understanding from a society that values genetic ‘normalcy’ (Collier, 2012). Genetic screening must be balanced with creating an inclusive culture that appreciates and supports all people, regardless of genetics, to avoid stigma.
Moreover, Lázaro-Muñoz et al. (2021) express worries about the socioeconomic impacts and equality challenges of increased genetic screening. Technology accessibility is a significant issue. Due to their high cost, advanced reproductive technologies like PGT may only be available to the wealthy. Genetic screening and its health benefits may be restricted to the wealthy, worsening inequality. Furthermore, extensive genetic screening may influence societal pressures to use these technologies, intruding on individuals’ rights to make reproductive decisions without societal criticism or coercion (Lázaro-Muñoz et al., 2021). This raises concerns about the societal impact of reproductive health technologies and the need for policies that prioritize individual choices and equitable access.
Rebuttals
While significant, embryo screening’s association with eugenics can be addressed by distinguishing between immoral historical eugenics and appropriate genetic screening for health. Modern genetic screening is voluntary and health-related, unlike prior eugenics campaigns driven by discriminating ideas and coerced. Diana et al. (2023) argue that embryo screening nowadays aims to prevent significant health issues and improve quality of life, not to create a genetically ‘superior’ population. This distinction is critical to understanding that informed consent and ethical medical practice underpin appropriate genetic screening, not eugenics. Modern genetic screening is entrenched in a healthcare system that values patient autonomy and ethical medical treatment, unlike eugenics, which is coercive and discriminatory.
Concerns regarding stigmatization make education and social assistance crucial. Educating the public about genetic disorders, screening reasons, and variety can reduce stigma. According to Collier (2012), raising awareness of the intricacies and realities of genetic disorders can make society more accepting. To help genetically ill people and their families, social support systems and policies must be reinforced. This method reduces stigma and emphasizes that genetics do not define value.
In order to address societal ramifications and equitable difficulties, it is essential to observe the rules and ethical principles (Lázaro-Muñoz et al., 2021). They should ensure fair and ethical use of genetic screening technology. Policies that expand access to these technologies can lessen inequities. Guidelines should also protect people from social pressures and preserve reproductive autonomy. Genetic screening should be ethical and socially responsible, aligning with public health and socioeconomic equity goals.
Conclusion
Advanced genetic screening technology can now uncover potential hereditary abnormalities, allowing parents to make choices that could improve their future children’s health. These advancements have highlighted important ethical considerations concerning such technologies. This conversation has covered eugenics, stigma, and social equity. The difference between appropriate genetic screening and eugenics, as well as education and robust social support systems, can reduce the risks of genetic screening. The right to screen embryos for Down syndrome is about parental responsibility, ethical medical practice, and reproductive autonomy. With the changing understanding of genetic screening in modern healthcare, this right promotes health outcomes while preserving human autonomy. Genetic screening will evolve in society in the future. We must continue establishing and enhancing ethical norms and policies to provide fair access to these technologies and promote a society that embraces diversity and supports genetic conditions. Like medical research, genetic screening is constantly learning and adapting to combine technology’s extraordinary capabilities with compassion and ethics.
References.
Collier, R. (2012). Screening embryos may lead to stigma. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 184(9), E455–E456. https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.109-4177
De Wert, G., Dondorp, W., & Bianchi, D. W. (2017). Fetal therapy for Down syndrome: an ethical exploration. Prenatal diagnosis, 37(3), 222-228. https://doi.org/10.1002%2Fpd.4995
Diana F., Ives P., Jonathan A., and Laurent.. (2023, June 22). Embryo Selection: Healthy Babies vs Bad Arguments. Retrieved December 1, 2023, from Aporiamagazine.com website: https://www.aporiamagazine.com/p/embryo-selection-healthy-babies-vs
Kaye, D. K. (2023). Addressing ethical issues related to prenatal diagnostic procedures. Maternal Health, Neonatology and Perinatology, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40748-023-00146-4
Lázaro-Muñoz, G., Pereira, S., Carmi, S., & Lencz, T. (2021). Screening embryos for polygenic conditions and traits: ethical considerations for an emerging technology. Genetics in Medicine, 23(3), 432-434. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41436-020-01019-3
write