1. I do not disagree with Heather D decision to not be tested for Huntington's gene. If she were to find out there would be nothing she can do to avoid it or to avoid it for herself. I personally do not agree with the different testings you can do do find out about your baby. its like they want to create a baby, not make a baby the old-fashion way. 2. I think that it sounds like an option or solution, but I do not think it is a morally acceptable solution. It is basically like having a bunch of little babies made and throwing out the ones who could be "defected". I personally do not agree with this solution option. 3. I do not really understand this question to provide an answer. However, if i were to guess what it is asking, i would respond by saying that i do think that the options are all wrong morally. I think they are all equivalent in that it is like selecting a baby by which one is "healthy" and not "defected". I do not understand why it matters to people so much that they would go to these lengths. Why would having a baby and finding out it have a disease or disformity make a person want to "rid" of it? I think it is cruel.
This is a difficlut topic all around. I do not think it is a wise choice for Heather not to be tested. It does make sense that she does not want to know if she carries the disease, but by not finding out she is risking her child's safety, unless she goes about the procedures mentioned. The genetic counselor's suggestion does provide a solution, but my guess is that if Heather's husband is against abortion in general he would not go along with the idea suggested. Preimplanation genetic diagnosis can be seen as a form of selective abortion depending on ones individual beliefs. I think the best bet is for heather to get tested for the disease, as painful as it may be to find out, then the couple can make their decsion. It seems to me that the couple really wants to have a baby, but only if they know it will be healthy. Maybe this couple really isn't ready for parenthood. I can also understand why a couple would want to do everything they can to ensure that their child is healthy. Isn't that what any parent would want?
Heather D. has the right to decide she does not want to be tested. If she doesn't want to know whether or not she has the disease, that is her decision. Personally, not knowing would stress me out thinking about all the 'what ifs' but Heather may want to live her life her way, and not live it a certain way because of a disease.
The genetic counselor does seem to provide a satisfactory solution for the potential parents. This method would ensure disclosure of whether Heather has Huntington's or not would not be revealed, and that the baby would be healthy.
I would say that preimplantation genetic diagnosis and discarding affected embryos is morally equivalent to prenatal diagnosis and selective diagnosis. In both cases, the embryos with the disease are selectively destroyed because they aren't 'good enough.' Although one process occurs outside the body and the other inside, they are morally identical.
I do not believe that Heather D's decision not to be tested for the Huntington's gene is a wise one, but it is her choice. She has a right to refuse testing if she does not want to know. It might make it easier for her to know if she has it, but it may also be just as hard. If she got tested, it would make having children much easier knowing what their risks are.
The genetic counselor's suggestion provides a satisfactory solution to the problem if you don't take into account the parents' beliefs. They may hold values that do not agree with the method suggested.
I believe that preimplantation genetic diagnosis and the discarding of affected embryos is morally equivalent to prenatal diagnosis and selective abortion. Both have the potential for human life, the only difference is one is outside the mother's body and the other is already inside. Both involve testing for a particular disease and discarding when the test comes out positive.
Heather's decision in deciding whether she wants to be tested for Huntington's is her choice and I do not think can be classified as wise or not because we all have different opinions on what we want to know and do not. However, if she wanted to have a child of her own then I would think she would think more about testing for Huntington's. I think the counselor's solution is ideal for her situation because she does not have to know whether there were embryos with the gene or not. I think preimplantation genetic diagnosis is along the same lines as in vitro because the embryos left over are discarded just as they would be for other reproductive techniques.
I agree that Heather should not be tested for Huntington's gene. I think that either way if she is going to get it she is going to have it so why worry about it before you have to. I think that her and her husband should go on and have a baby if that's what they want and not worry about her dying later on because any parent could have a child and then die the next day. I think that the genetic counsler is crazy because that is too much control over making babies and I don't agree with "picking" what child you are going to have. i feel that if a parent is allowed to pick then they are at risk for developing some other weird and crazy disorders later in the future for messing with DNA. I think that the preimplantation and discarding affected embryos is the same thing as selective abortion and prenatal diagnosis because you are choosing what you want and just getting rid of the rest. I find this horrifying and cannot imagine getting rid of my kid because there was something wrong with it. I think that this situation is crazy and the parents should not be allowed to select their child.
This is an interesting case becasue of the conflicting morals it seems that the family has. Since the husband is against abortion it would seem to me that he should also be against the idea of "quietly disgarding" of the bad embryos. You cannot fault Heather for not wanting to know when she is going to die, I can't imagine many of us would want to know that detail of our lives. If Heather did find out that her life was going to be cut short then, it is fully plausable that she might be drawn into a deep depression that would be harmful to everyone involved in family. Also one must consider the husband. What if he does not want to know if his wife is going to have her life cut short? If the family is ok with the idea proposed then I believe it is ethical for them to undergo such methods of conception.
1) I agree with Heather's decision not to be tested. Just because we have the capability to test for a number of diseases does not mean that the tests should be mandatory. I think it is good that the test is available but I think that the autonomy of Heather should be respected. If she doesn't want to be tested she shouldn't have to be. 2) I believe that the solution provided by the counselor was a good one for this family. The solution respects the autonomy of both Heather and her husband while insuring the health (with respect to Huntington's at least) of the child. 3) I believe this depends on the point at which you feel life begins. If you feel that life begins at the moment of conception then there is no significant difference between the two. However, if you believe that life begins later (for example: at implantation or when the fetus is capable of living on its own outside the womb) there is an incredibly significant difference.
Heather, as an individual, has every right to choose whether she wants to know her diagnosis or not. As a wife and planning mother, she owes it to her husband and unborn child to be responsible and to know, if they do not want a child to carry the gene. The suggestion of the genetic counselor would solve the couples’ problems, but manipulating genes and discarding fetuses can be a very tricky situation. I think that preimplantation genetic diagnosis and discarding affected embryos is morally equivalent to prenatal diagnosis and abortion. In both cases human life is being discarded.
1)I think that Heather not getting the test done is best for her, since she doesn't want to know. These tests are there for our knowledge if we want it, which she obviously doesn't and it wouldn't affect whether she is going to get Huntingtons Disease or not.
2) I think that the solution provided is the best option for them since Heather doesn't want to know if she has Huntingtons or not. This way, she can have a healthy child and still not know her fate.
3) I think it is morally acceptable, because I don't believe that life starts until the embryo is implanted in the womb. The embryo has the potential for life but it's not living yet so I wouldn't consider it immoral to discard the remaining embryos. These parents aren't just making a lot of embryos for the heck of it, they are doing it so that they can have a healthy child so I think this situation is moral since it is best for everyone.
1. I do not disagree with Heather D decision to not be tested for Huntington's gene. If she were to find out there would be nothing she can do to avoid it or to avoid it for herself. I personally do not agree with the different testings you can do do find out about your baby. its like they want to create a baby, not make a baby the old-fashion way.
ReplyDelete2. I think that it sounds like an option or solution, but I do not think it is a morally acceptable solution. It is basically like having a bunch of little babies made and throwing out the ones who could be "defected". I personally do not agree with this solution option.
3. I do not really understand this question to provide an answer. However, if i were to guess what it is asking, i would respond by saying that i do think that the options are all wrong morally. I think they are all equivalent in that it is like selecting a baby by which one is "healthy" and not "defected". I do not understand why it matters to people so much that they would go to these lengths. Why would having a baby and finding out it have a disease or disformity make a person want to "rid" of it? I think it is cruel.
This is a difficlut topic all around. I do not think it is a wise choice for Heather not to be tested. It does make sense that she does not want to know if she carries the disease, but by not finding out she is risking her child's safety, unless she goes about the procedures mentioned.
ReplyDeleteThe genetic counselor's suggestion does provide a solution, but my guess is that if Heather's husband is against abortion in general he would not go along with the idea suggested.
Preimplanation genetic diagnosis can be seen as a form of selective abortion depending on ones individual beliefs. I think the best bet is for heather to get tested for the disease, as painful as it may be to find out, then the couple can make their decsion. It seems to me that the couple really wants to have a baby, but only if they know it will be healthy. Maybe this couple really isn't ready for parenthood. I can also understand why a couple would want to do everything they can to ensure that their child is healthy. Isn't that what any parent would want?
Heather D. has the right to decide she does not want to be tested. If she doesn't want to know whether or not she has the disease, that is her decision. Personally, not knowing would stress me out thinking about all the 'what ifs' but Heather may want to live her life her way, and not live it a certain way because of a disease.
ReplyDeleteThe genetic counselor does seem to provide a satisfactory solution for the potential parents. This method would ensure disclosure of whether Heather has Huntington's or not would not be revealed, and that the baby would be healthy.
I would say that preimplantation genetic diagnosis and discarding affected embryos is morally equivalent to prenatal diagnosis and selective diagnosis. In both cases, the embryos with the disease are selectively destroyed because they aren't 'good enough.' Although one process occurs outside the body and the other inside, they are morally identical.
I do not believe that Heather D's decision not to be tested for the Huntington's gene is a wise one, but it is her choice. She has a right to refuse testing if she does not want to know. It might make it easier for her to know if she has it, but it may also be just as hard. If she got tested, it would make having children much easier knowing what their risks are.
ReplyDeleteThe genetic counselor's suggestion provides a satisfactory solution to the problem if you don't take into account the parents' beliefs. They may hold values that do not agree with the method suggested.
I believe that preimplantation genetic diagnosis and the discarding of affected embryos is morally equivalent to prenatal diagnosis and selective abortion. Both have the potential for human life, the only difference is one is outside the mother's body and the other is already inside. Both involve testing for a particular disease and discarding when the test comes out positive.
Heather's decision in deciding whether she wants to be tested for Huntington's is her choice and I do not think can be classified as wise or not because we all have different opinions on what we want to know and do not. However, if she wanted to have a child of her own then I would think she would think more about testing for Huntington's. I think the counselor's solution is ideal for her situation because she does not have to know whether there were embryos with the gene or not. I think preimplantation genetic diagnosis is along the same lines as in vitro because the embryos left over are discarded just as they would be for other reproductive techniques.
ReplyDeleteI agree that Heather should not be tested for Huntington's gene. I think that either way if she is going to get it she is going to have it so why worry about it before you have to. I think that her and her husband should go on and have a baby if that's what they want and not worry about her dying later on because any parent could have a child and then die the next day. I think that the genetic counsler is crazy because that is too much control over making babies and I don't agree with "picking" what child you are going to have. i feel that if a parent is allowed to pick then they are at risk for developing some other weird and crazy disorders later in the future for messing with DNA. I think that the preimplantation and discarding affected embryos is the same thing as selective abortion and prenatal diagnosis because you are choosing what you want and just getting rid of the rest. I find this horrifying and cannot imagine getting rid of my kid because there was something wrong with it. I think that this situation is crazy and the parents should not be allowed to select their child.
ReplyDeleteThis is an interesting case becasue of the conflicting morals it seems that the family has. Since the husband is against abortion it would seem to me that he should also be against the idea of "quietly disgarding" of the bad embryos. You cannot fault Heather for not wanting to know when she is going to die, I can't imagine many of us would want to know that detail of our lives. If Heather did find out that her life was going to be cut short then, it is fully plausable that she might be drawn into a deep depression that would be harmful to everyone involved in family. Also one must consider the husband. What if he does not want to know if his wife is going to have her life cut short? If the family is ok with the idea proposed then I believe it is ethical for them to undergo such methods of conception.
ReplyDelete1) I agree with Heather's decision not to be tested. Just because we have the capability to test for a number of diseases does not mean that the tests should be mandatory. I think it is good that the test is available but I think that the autonomy of Heather should be respected. If she doesn't want to be tested she shouldn't have to be.
ReplyDelete2) I believe that the solution provided by the counselor was a good one for this family. The solution respects the autonomy of both Heather and her husband while insuring the health (with respect to Huntington's at least) of the child.
3) I believe this depends on the point at which you feel life begins. If you feel that life begins at the moment of conception then there is no significant difference between the two. However, if you believe that life begins later (for example: at implantation or when the fetus is capable of living on its own outside the womb) there is an incredibly significant difference.
Heather, as an individual, has every right to choose whether she wants to know her diagnosis or not. As a wife and planning mother, she owes it to her husband and unborn child to be responsible and to know, if they do not want a child to carry the gene. The suggestion of the genetic counselor would solve the couples’ problems, but manipulating genes and discarding fetuses can be a very tricky situation. I think that preimplantation genetic diagnosis and discarding affected embryos is morally equivalent to prenatal diagnosis and abortion. In both cases human life is being discarded.
ReplyDelete1)I think that Heather not getting the test done is best for her, since she doesn't want to know. These tests are there for our knowledge if we want it, which she obviously doesn't and it wouldn't affect whether she is going to get Huntingtons Disease or not.
ReplyDelete2) I think that the solution provided is the best option for them since Heather doesn't want to know if she has Huntingtons or not. This way, she can have a healthy child and still not know her fate.
3) I think it is morally acceptable, because I don't believe that life starts until the embryo is implanted in the womb. The embryo has the potential for life but it's not living yet so I wouldn't consider it immoral to discard the remaining embryos. These parents aren't just making a lot of embryos for the heck of it, they are doing it so that they can have a healthy child so I think this situation is moral since it is best for everyone.