Essay Available:
Pages:
10 pages/≈2750 words
Sources:
8
Style:
APA
Subject:
Health, Medicine, Nursing
Type:
Essay
Language:
English (U.S.)
Document:
MS Word
Date:
Total cost:
$ 43.2
Topic:
Gender Selection in Human Embryos
Essay Instructions:
This is for an ethics class. (HCM420: Ethical Decisions in Healthcare Management) at CSU-Global campus. I selected Gender selection in human embryos, but any topic is fine. I needs to be ethical based. The paper is due Aug 28. Option #1: Paper Select one of the following ethical issues in healthcare from the following choices: Gender selection in human embryos Stem cell transplants Foregoing curative medical treatment due to religious beliefs Futility of care Abortion after six months. If no topic listed here is of interest to you, contact your instructor for permission to consider a different topic. Use the CSU Global Library and select Internet sources to conduct research on your chosen topic. Based on your research, provide the history of the issue from a legal, ethical, and moral perspective. In your paper address the following questions: Do the consequences of actions always direct what is morally required? What should happen when two principles come into conflict? For example, should patient autonomy be considered more important than beneficence? Defend your position. Are moral and ethically rules always binding, or are they only guidelines to be assessed in each case? Defend your position. Your paper should meet the following requirements: Be ten to twelve pages in length, not including the cover or reference pages. Be formatted according to the CSU-Global Guide to Writing and APA Requirements. Provide support for your statements with in-text citations from a minimum of eight scholarly references - four of these references must be from outside sources and four may be from course readings, lectures, and textbooks. The CSU-Global Library is a good place to find these references. Utilize headings to organize the content in your work.
Essay Sample Content Preview:
Gender selection in human embryos
Student:
Professor:
Course title:
Date:
Gender selection in human embryos
These days, parents are able to utilize genetic engineering in selecting their child’s gender by directly manipulating the gender of an embryo. However, the usage of this technique creates ethical and moral concerns in the view of some people (Milliez, 2011). In this paper, the ethics in gender selection in human embryos is discussed exhaustively. This paper also covers whether the consequences of actions always direct what is morally required, what needs to happen whenever 2 principles come into conflict, and whether moral and ethical rules are always binding or they are just guidelines to be assessed in every case.
Sex selection entails attempting to control the offspring’s gender in order to attain a desired gender. Sex selection could be achieved in a number of ways, both at post-implantation and pre-implementation of an embryo, and even at birth. Parents might ask for sex selection for different reasons. Medical reason includes preventing sex-linked genetic disorders (Clinch & Osland, 2012). Additionally, there are various personal, cultural, economic and social reasons for choosing the gender of offspring. In cultures where boys are more highly valued than girls, the practice of sex selection is done in order to ensure that the child would be a boy. Parents who have one or more kids of the same gender might ask for sex selection for family balancing purposes – to have a kid of the other gender (Colls et al., 2010).
The ethics of sex selection
Statements have been issued by a number of organizations regarding the ethics of healthcare providers’ involvement in sex selection. The American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) ethics committee holds that using preconception sex selection through pre-implantation genetic diagnosis for non-medical reasons is morally problematic and needs to be discouraged (Milliez, 2011). Nonetheless, it also issued a statement in which it asserted that if pre-fertilization methods, especially flow cytimetry for sperm sorting, were shown to be effectual and safe, then these methods and procedures would be allowed from the ethical viewpoint for purposes of family balancing. Given that a pre-implantation genetic diagnosis is, in essence, physically more burdensome and usually involves destroying and getting rid of embryos, it was not regarded similarly allowable for family balancing (Milliez, 2011). The United Nations (UN) adopted The Programme of Action which opposes the usage of selection methods for non-medical reasons. The UN advises governments globally to take appropriate measures to stop prenatal sex selection (Clinch & Osland, 2012).
According to the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, the ethical issues pertaining to sex pre-selection are as follows: unnecessary medical costs and burdens for the parents; the potential for intrinsic sex discrimination; as well as potentially unfair and inappropriate usage of limited medical resources (Clinch & Osland, 2012). It is notable that there is a likelihood that the kids who are products of sex selection techniques would feel higher expectations or extra pressures placed on them. Gender selection might bring about marital conflicts over the gender distribution or the order of kids. Additionally, sex selection might worsen the already existing gender biases in societies (Sparrow, 2013). Parents might seek sex balance as a fashionable idea or social trend instead of particularly considering their situation. In addition, parents might lose sight of the pleasure of kids by having expectations of those children even prior to their conception. Furthermore, parents might place a greater emphasis on the genetic traits of a child, rather than to the child’s inherent worth (Colls et al., 2010).
In essence, there are quite a few potential adverse consequences of using sex pre-selection technology. Milliez (2011) reported that discrimination basing on gender might be worsened. A less evident ethical issue is the likelihood that children would be expected to behave in particular gender-specific manners when the sex selection procedure is successful and who might disappoint their parents when the technique fails. Sparrow (2013) reported that the decision to select the gender of a child might be harmful if this decision is made for social reasons and not medical reasons. In societies such as China and India which favour boys, sex selection techniques assist the parents in selecting male instead of female children. This is used to help the parents avoid resorting to female feticide and infanticide and also eliminates pressure on the mother from relatives and her husband to give birth to male children. Nonetheless, using these technologies for sex selection for societal reasons serves to perpetuate sexist attitudes with regard to the female gender. In addition, the practice of sex selection serves to create an imbalance in the ratio of females to males in countries which support the utilization of these sex selection techniques (Colls et al., 2010).
Consequences of actions do not always direct what is morally required
The consequences of actions do not always direct what is morally required. Some actions may be wrong but they have desirable consequences or outcomes, for instance stealing to give to the poor; stealing is morally wrong but giving to the poor is morally right. Likewise, the actions may be morally right but the consequences are morally wrong. The following theoretical approaches help to determine whether an action is morally right or wrong.
Consequentialism and utilitarianism
The consequences of actions do not always direct what is morally required. According to consequentialism, morality is entirely about producing the appropriate sorts of overall consequences. In essence, whether an action is morally wrong or right is dependent totally on the consequences of that action. An action is right if it results in the best outcome of the available choices. If not, then that action is wrong (Vivian-Byrne & Hunt, 2014). According to consequentialists, an action is Right when it maximizes the Good. It is notable that The Good are things for instance states of affairs or goals which are worth promoting and pursuing, while The Right refers to the moral rightness of policies and actions. Consequentialists argue that: how could doing something that produces the most good be wrong? According to the view of consequentialism, consequences are all that matters (Rothstein, 2014). Quite the opposite, the deontological theories of Immanuel Kant and John Locke are non-consequentialist. The consequences of an action in consequentialism are: (i) the action itself; and (ii) everything that the action causes.
The utilitarianism of Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill is a common example of consequentialism. According to utilitarianism, the Good refers to pleasure with no pain. As such, according to utilitarianism, the moral duty of people is to minimize pain and maximize pleasure (Keskin, 2013). By using consequentialism to evaluate the action of gender selection in human embryos, this action can be considered as morally wrong since preconception sex selection through preimplantation genetic diagnosis for non-medical reasons is really not something that is worth promoting or pursuing. In consequentialism, the end justifies the means. An action is not morally wrong or right in itself. Instead, moral wrongness and rightness of a given action is determined by the badness or goodness of the states of the world the action would bring about – the consequences (Keskin, 2012). Since the practice of sex selection creates an imbalance between the female and male ratio and perpetuates gender discrimination against women and girls, it is considered as morally wrong. Utilitarian decision-making is dependent on tools such as risk assessment and cost/benefit analysis in determining the greatest utility.
Kantianism
Kant’s moral theory is deontological: an action is morally right in virtue of its motives, which has to derive more from duty than from tendency. An example of morally right action is specifically that which an individual agent’s determination to act according to duty overcomes his obvious self-interest and evident desire to do otherwise (Nelson, 2015). In such an instance, Kant argued that an action’s moral value could reside only in a formal principle or maxim, the general commitment to act like this given that it is one’s duty. He therefore reached a conclusion that duty is the necessity of acting out of respect for the law (Nelson, 2015). All in all, Kantian theory maintains that wrong and right is in fact determined by rationality, giving universal duties. Evil and good are defined in terms of obligation/duty/law. According to Kantianism, it is somewhat easy to act morally: a person ought to do his or her duty – purely because it is his/her duty. This conclusion is guided by reason. Deontologists claim that a certain action can be wrong or right in itself. Having the right intentions – Good Will – is actually the onl...
Student:
Professor:
Course title:
Date:
Gender selection in human embryos
These days, parents are able to utilize genetic engineering in selecting their child’s gender by directly manipulating the gender of an embryo. However, the usage of this technique creates ethical and moral concerns in the view of some people (Milliez, 2011). In this paper, the ethics in gender selection in human embryos is discussed exhaustively. This paper also covers whether the consequences of actions always direct what is morally required, what needs to happen whenever 2 principles come into conflict, and whether moral and ethical rules are always binding or they are just guidelines to be assessed in every case.
Sex selection entails attempting to control the offspring’s gender in order to attain a desired gender. Sex selection could be achieved in a number of ways, both at post-implantation and pre-implementation of an embryo, and even at birth. Parents might ask for sex selection for different reasons. Medical reason includes preventing sex-linked genetic disorders (Clinch & Osland, 2012). Additionally, there are various personal, cultural, economic and social reasons for choosing the gender of offspring. In cultures where boys are more highly valued than girls, the practice of sex selection is done in order to ensure that the child would be a boy. Parents who have one or more kids of the same gender might ask for sex selection for family balancing purposes – to have a kid of the other gender (Colls et al., 2010).
The ethics of sex selection
Statements have been issued by a number of organizations regarding the ethics of healthcare providers’ involvement in sex selection. The American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) ethics committee holds that using preconception sex selection through pre-implantation genetic diagnosis for non-medical reasons is morally problematic and needs to be discouraged (Milliez, 2011). Nonetheless, it also issued a statement in which it asserted that if pre-fertilization methods, especially flow cytimetry for sperm sorting, were shown to be effectual and safe, then these methods and procedures would be allowed from the ethical viewpoint for purposes of family balancing. Given that a pre-implantation genetic diagnosis is, in essence, physically more burdensome and usually involves destroying and getting rid of embryos, it was not regarded similarly allowable for family balancing (Milliez, 2011). The United Nations (UN) adopted The Programme of Action which opposes the usage of selection methods for non-medical reasons. The UN advises governments globally to take appropriate measures to stop prenatal sex selection (Clinch & Osland, 2012).
According to the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, the ethical issues pertaining to sex pre-selection are as follows: unnecessary medical costs and burdens for the parents; the potential for intrinsic sex discrimination; as well as potentially unfair and inappropriate usage of limited medical resources (Clinch & Osland, 2012). It is notable that there is a likelihood that the kids who are products of sex selection techniques would feel higher expectations or extra pressures placed on them. Gender selection might bring about marital conflicts over the gender distribution or the order of kids. Additionally, sex selection might worsen the already existing gender biases in societies (Sparrow, 2013). Parents might seek sex balance as a fashionable idea or social trend instead of particularly considering their situation. In addition, parents might lose sight of the pleasure of kids by having expectations of those children even prior to their conception. Furthermore, parents might place a greater emphasis on the genetic traits of a child, rather than to the child’s inherent worth (Colls et al., 2010).
In essence, there are quite a few potential adverse consequences of using sex pre-selection technology. Milliez (2011) reported that discrimination basing on gender might be worsened. A less evident ethical issue is the likelihood that children would be expected to behave in particular gender-specific manners when the sex selection procedure is successful and who might disappoint their parents when the technique fails. Sparrow (2013) reported that the decision to select the gender of a child might be harmful if this decision is made for social reasons and not medical reasons. In societies such as China and India which favour boys, sex selection techniques assist the parents in selecting male instead of female children. This is used to help the parents avoid resorting to female feticide and infanticide and also eliminates pressure on the mother from relatives and her husband to give birth to male children. Nonetheless, using these technologies for sex selection for societal reasons serves to perpetuate sexist attitudes with regard to the female gender. In addition, the practice of sex selection serves to create an imbalance in the ratio of females to males in countries which support the utilization of these sex selection techniques (Colls et al., 2010).
Consequences of actions do not always direct what is morally required
The consequences of actions do not always direct what is morally required. Some actions may be wrong but they have desirable consequences or outcomes, for instance stealing to give to the poor; stealing is morally wrong but giving to the poor is morally right. Likewise, the actions may be morally right but the consequences are morally wrong. The following theoretical approaches help to determine whether an action is morally right or wrong.
Consequentialism and utilitarianism
The consequences of actions do not always direct what is morally required. According to consequentialism, morality is entirely about producing the appropriate sorts of overall consequences. In essence, whether an action is morally wrong or right is dependent totally on the consequences of that action. An action is right if it results in the best outcome of the available choices. If not, then that action is wrong (Vivian-Byrne & Hunt, 2014). According to consequentialists, an action is Right when it maximizes the Good. It is notable that The Good are things for instance states of affairs or goals which are worth promoting and pursuing, while The Right refers to the moral rightness of policies and actions. Consequentialists argue that: how could doing something that produces the most good be wrong? According to the view of consequentialism, consequences are all that matters (Rothstein, 2014). Quite the opposite, the deontological theories of Immanuel Kant and John Locke are non-consequentialist. The consequences of an action in consequentialism are: (i) the action itself; and (ii) everything that the action causes.
The utilitarianism of Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill is a common example of consequentialism. According to utilitarianism, the Good refers to pleasure with no pain. As such, according to utilitarianism, the moral duty of people is to minimize pain and maximize pleasure (Keskin, 2013). By using consequentialism to evaluate the action of gender selection in human embryos, this action can be considered as morally wrong since preconception sex selection through preimplantation genetic diagnosis for non-medical reasons is really not something that is worth promoting or pursuing. In consequentialism, the end justifies the means. An action is not morally wrong or right in itself. Instead, moral wrongness and rightness of a given action is determined by the badness or goodness of the states of the world the action would bring about – the consequences (Keskin, 2012). Since the practice of sex selection creates an imbalance between the female and male ratio and perpetuates gender discrimination against women and girls, it is considered as morally wrong. Utilitarian decision-making is dependent on tools such as risk assessment and cost/benefit analysis in determining the greatest utility.
Kantianism
Kant’s moral theory is deontological: an action is morally right in virtue of its motives, which has to derive more from duty than from tendency. An example of morally right action is specifically that which an individual agent’s determination to act according to duty overcomes his obvious self-interest and evident desire to do otherwise (Nelson, 2015). In such an instance, Kant argued that an action’s moral value could reside only in a formal principle or maxim, the general commitment to act like this given that it is one’s duty. He therefore reached a conclusion that duty is the necessity of acting out of respect for the law (Nelson, 2015). All in all, Kantian theory maintains that wrong and right is in fact determined by rationality, giving universal duties. Evil and good are defined in terms of obligation/duty/law. According to Kantianism, it is somewhat easy to act morally: a person ought to do his or her duty – purely because it is his/her duty. This conclusion is guided by reason. Deontologists claim that a certain action can be wrong or right in itself. Having the right intentions – Good Will – is actually the onl...
Get the Whole Paper!
Not exactly what you need?
Do you need a custom essay? Order right now: