Hello,
I am new here but would like to try and get some help with my paper that I have written. Any help would be great. The paper is for a philosphy class I am taking and is actually two different questions in one paper, but I was told that this is how they want it. Again any feedback would be really helpful! I have not added my references yet and will do that after I am done polishing the essay.
Prenatal Testing and Screening
Prenatal testing is the testing of fetus before being born for genetic defects that may be present in the fetus. Different types of tests that one can use are ultrasound, amnioscentesis, chronic villus sampling, and maternal serum testing (section 5, pg. 22). With the advent of newer testing made available to mothers, more problems also arise within the context of the practice. Physical problems such as miscarriages, or emotional problems such as decisions to abort a fetus after a positive result from a genetic test, are all problems that need to be dealt with when dealing with genetic testing.
Numerous claims are made about the decision of abortions being coerced or made free. Abby Lippman argues that the technologies that allow prenatal diagnosis, as well as how they are offered to patients and performed on patients, are coercive because they make women feel compelled to take the test (section 5, pp.22). Lippman argues that because these technologies are available, if a new mother knows of a genetic defect to be present within her family, she may be considered by others around her to be an irresponsible mother if she does not undergo a test to determine that the mother's child also does not have a disease. As well, the tests are controlled by geneticists and obstetricians in which diseases to test for, and not by the mother herself Section 5, p22). Finally, Lippman also argues that even though the mother may want to continue with the birth of the foetus, society will make the mother feel pressured to abort because the foetus is unhealthy. Lippman believes that people other than the mother decides which child is healthy or unhealthy, such as the geneticist's and obstetrician's. These choices limit the mother's autonomy by not providing her with the choices that she may want to make, and not what society thinks the mother should make. Ultimately, genetic testing a foetus may leave a mother with fewer options as what to do with a child, rather with more options and information, which is why genetic testing was originally designed to do in the first place.
Dorothy Wertz and John Fletcher on the other hand argue that the majority of critiques for genetic testing revolve around feminist perspectives. Wertz and Fletcher believe that many of these arguments are inaccurate because many women welcome the advent of such testing. Wertz and Fletcher ultimately believe that women can make their own responsible choice, and that feminist objections to genetic testing seem to carry tension (section 5 p 22).
After examining Lippman's argument against genetic testing and Wert and Fletcher's argument for genetic testing, Wertz and Fletcher would point out that Lippman's argument is formed on the basis that women in general cannot make their own free decision, and that society plays the ultimate role in deciding if a mother chooses to continue her pregnancy or abort the pregnancy. What Lippman argues is that women are ultimately controlled by the society, the society being the geneticists and obstetricians, and that this society decides for the mother if she can keep her child or not by pressuring a mother. Wertz and Fletcher on the other hand, argue that even though the geneticists and obstetricians can tell a mother if her unborn child is healthy or not, the mother can still make the choice herself to continue the pregnancy or abort. Society in other words, can only provide the answers to her questions, but cannot force the mother into choosing abortion. Even though the mother may feel obligated by society to abort the child, the mother still possesses the right to her autonomy and can decide for herself. Finally, Wertz and Fletcher would also argue that the choice to have the genetic test is ultimately made by the mother herself, and if she chooses, she does not have to undergo the testing. This choice, as Wertz and Fletcher believe, is welcomed by mothers as they can have more information to help provide for the child in the future, and if need be, abort the child if the mother feels that it would cause more harm to have the child, then to never be born in the first place. Ultimately, Wertz and Fletcher would argue that autonomy is still maintained in the mother's rights to decisions of her unborn child, and even though society can play a role in the mother's choosing, it will ultimately be the choice of the mother and no one else's.
In Mr. and Mrs. Brown, Lippman would view the decision as being coerced by society. Mrs. Brown stated that "she feared that her child would suffer sex-identity crises" and that "she could not convince herself that her child would not be retarded". Even though medical research has disproved the theory that Klinefelter's syndrome does not carry an associated risk of retardation, Lippman would argue that society has influenced Mrs. Brown's decision by instilling the belief that mental retardation is inevitable with Kleinfelter syndrome. Ultimately, Lippman could argue that society has reduced Mrs. Brown's autonomy by making Mrs. Brown vulnerable to the belief that her child could be either mentally retarded or suffer from a sex identity disorder, and therefore, genetic testing should not have been carried out.
As well, Lippman can also argue that because the genetic testing had to be carried out in the second trimester of her pregnancy, this left Mrs. Brown with little options to base her decisions on. While genetic testing did give Mrs. Brown answers, these answers may have come too late for Mrs. Brown to make a reasonable decision. Therefore, genetic testing has also limited her autonomy because even though Mrs. Brown did receive her answers to the genetic test, she was limited in her time to only 10 days to make the decision to abort her foetus or not. And while Mrs. Brown pleaded for extra time for her decision, she could only have 10 days to make her decision. This shows that genetic testing has only placed a more difficult decision on Mrs. Brown because with only 10 days to decide, this does not allow a great amount of time to decide on a sensitive issue. Thus, Lippman could argue that genetic testing should not have taken place because the amount of time that it has granted Mrs. Brown to make a decision is too little time to decide the fate of her child.
While the decision to abort a foetus or not is a very difficult decision to come to, Lippman does make an important argument in Mrs. Brown's case. While genetic testing has given Mrs. Brown the answers that she wanted, it did not provide her with enough time to come to a decision to abort her foetus or not. The decision to abort a foetus is in no way an easy decision in the first place. In Mrs. Brown's case, she had only 10 days to decide, and could not be given more time when Mrs. Brown pleaded with the doctors for more time.
As well, Mrs. Brown`s false ideas about Kleinfelter syndrome could only be a product of society as it was previously believed to lead to mental retardation but has since been discredited. The belief that the foetus will be retarded when born limits Mrs. Brown autonomy to decide accurately if she should abort or continue the pregnancy. Genetic testing for Mrs. Brown has made her more vulnerable to society's influences because even though it was explained what Kleinfelter was, Mrs. Brown does not possess the proper knowledge to make her decision about the foetus. This misinformation and pressure from society has only left Mrs. Brown less autonomous in her choices and thus does not give Mrs. Brown the full information to base her choices on.
Thus, I would agree with Lippman in this case because society has provided influence on Mrs. Brown to base her decision on. Mrs. Brown`s false belief that her baby will be retarded when born was influenced by societies previous belief that a Kleinfelter baby will be predisposed to being retarded. As well, the genetic testing for the defect has only given Mrs. Brown a small window of time to make her decision. While the genetic testing has given Mrs. Brown answers to her questions, it was only in the second trimester when the test could be performed and the results were only available a few days before the amount of time she had to abort the child, thus not providing enough time for the decision to abort be made. Overall, Mrs. Brown`s autonomy was reduced in the sense that she could not make a timely choice, as evident by her asking for more time to make the decision, as well as her belief that the baby will be retarded when born. This reduction in autonomy was the result of having the genetic test being performed on Mrs. Brown, as well as what society has influenced Mrs. Brown into believing, and as such has not provided the benefits that genetic testing is supposed to provide.
The Baby Wingrove Case
Organ transplantation has been used in medicine to transfer an organ from one person to another person who is dying in order to save a life. With the advent of organ transplantation, the rise of ethical dilemmas has also come about. One major cause of ethical dilemma stems from the question of when a person is actually dead (section 7 pg. 7). In the past death was defined as when the heart stopped beating and when the person stopped breathing (section 7 pg. 7). But with the advent of organ donation, this was not an accurate model of death. Later, the definition of death was revised as the irreversible function of the whole brain, as well as the brain stem itself (section 7. pg 8). This definition has made it possible for transplantation to continue.
In the baby Wingrove case, the baby was diagnosed with anencephaly, which is the non development of the brain past the brain stem and would only have basic reflex movements. The mother in this case would like to donate her child`s organs while the father would not. In the case of organ transplantation, it would be acceptable to use the organ`s of the baby to donate to another person because the brain has no capacity to function. Yet the heart is still beating and the baby would still be breathing when born.
The father on the other hand would not like to donate the organs of the baby because he is unable to bear the suffering of watching his baby daughter die after only a few days of birth. While someone may benefit from an organ donation to keep a patient alive, would it be considered ethical to have a child born, only for her organs to be delivered to another? While most people refer to people who give organs as donors, keeping a child alive to harvest the organs from a living human being should be called sources, and not donors, since the organ donor has no say in if the organs are taken or not (section 7 pg. 13). The father states that he would not want to being his daughter into the world, only to undergo difficult tests and have the baby pass away only a couple of days later. This would imply that the father is uncomfortable to keep his daughter alive, only to go through rigorous tests before she dies just so that the baby can be used as a source of organs.
The mother states that she would like to think that she could use her daughter to help others with the organs that are donated. While the daughter may only be born for her organs, the daughter could help save numerous other lives as there is a great shortage of organs at the present. Increasing the supplies of organs has been very difficult and numerous ways, such as paying compensation for organs, using living organ donors and using cadavers as donors has been raised, but paediatric organs are very difficult to obtain (section 7 pg.13). The mother would like to see her baby help others as her daughter can be used as a source for paediatric organs, and thus help to increase the amount of lives saved by donating their baby's organs.
In cases of organ donation, we would need to look at the ethical theories to provide moral support in the decisions we make in organ donations. A Kantian would view this case as a means to an end. Because the mother would like to have the child in order to donate the organs, she is only providing a means to an end with her daughter. This is because the mother would like to have the daughter born, only to harvest the organs. The baby itself would not live for very long, and while living would only be subjected to testing that would be agonizing to a newborn, only to have the organs taken while she is still alive. Therefore, a Kantian would not be able to justify this as we are only having the child in the first place to take the organs. Another argument is that the mother is basing her decision on the fact that she would like to give her child's brief life meaning. As a Kantian, this would be wrong because the decision is being made not out of duty, but out of a wanting that the mother would like to bring meaning to the child's life. For a good will to be perceived as a good will in a Kantian perspective, duty must be accompanied by no desire to gain anything. Therefore, a Kantian would argue that the mother is not making the right moral decision because the mother would like to gain something from the good deed of giving birth to her child only to have the organs donated.
A utilitarian on the other hand would view this case as the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people. Therefore, a utilitarian would argue that by having the child who is going to die anyways, it would be morally wrong not to harvest the organs, as the organs can benefit more people than the loss of the single life of the baby. Because of the shortage of organs for children as well, not donating the organs would be considered as irresponsible because more lives could be saved. Another point a utilitarian could point out is that it would also be morally wrong to abort the foetus , as this would also cause a loss of organs that could be used to help others. By aborting the pregnancy, this would cause more people to suffer than to have one child spared the suffering. While the child will suffer in the few days after being born, nothing is gained in aborting the foetus because others will also die from not receiving the organs that could be donated from the baby in the first place. Overall, a utilitarian would argue against the baby not being born for her organs, as this would cause more suffering than good, and is not morally acceptable in a utilitarian perspective.
In this case, both the mother and the father make convincing arguments. The mother would like to have her child in order to help save other lives that could benefit from the baby's organs. The view the mother takes would be a utilitarian perspective. The father on the other hand does not see the justification in having a child, only to subject the newborn to gruelling tests for her organs alone, and not to help prolong the child's life. The father in this case would take a Kantian perspective as this would mean using the baby as a means to an end.
Overall, I would agree with Mr. Wingrove in this case, as the baby is only being used for the organs, and would not enjoy a life that she deserves. While the baby could help save lives if she were born, it would not be morally acceptable to use a child as a source of organs for others. A child who is just being born is still a life that needs to be respected. The basis of philosophy is to help preserve life, and while the organs can be used to help other lives, organ donation should not be used as a means to an end. The lives that could be saved from the organ donation may not be prolonged very long as organ donation is still a new science. While organs can help prolong a life, they can also cause more pain and suffering for a patient, just to prolong a life a little longer. The drugs used in organ donation, as well as the medical procedures needed are very risky and costly, if only to help a patient survive a little longer in life. This would mean that baby Wingrove is only suffering for a chance to help save a human life, as the organs being donated may or may not help prolong a life, and may in fact cause more suffering for the patient receiving the organs. Finally, even though the baby may only live for a few days, the life that the newborn child would experience would be one were the child could not enjoy herself. The tests that would have to be performed on the child would be very stressful, and even though the child has no brain capacity, a human being must be treated as such because it is still a life. By not giving the child treatment for her condition, we are denying a living person to the basic necessities that one would deserve. In conclusion, having a child that would live only for a few days just to donate organs would be wrong because we are not respecting the life of the child, and only using the child for her organs in what might help a person survive a little longer than without the organs.
With the advent of newer testing made available to mothers
I think it should be either "with the advent of newer testing methods" or "with newer testing methods made available to mothers"
Physical problems such as miscarriages
I am not sure if I am right here, but just be sure if miscarriages can be caused by the testing methods.
she may be considered by others around her to be an irresponsible mother if she does not undergo a test to determine that the mother's child also does not have a disease
she may be considered by others around her to be an irresponsible mother if she does not undergo a test to determine
if her child has a disease or not.As well, the tests are controlled by geneticists and obstetricians in which diseases to test for, and not by the mother herself
the tests are controlled by geneticists and obstetricians,
rather than the mother herself.society will make the mother feel pressured to abort because the foetus is unhealthy.
the society will
pressurize the mother to abort if the tests determine the foetus to be unhealthy.
Lippman believes that people other than the mother decides which child is healthy or unhealthy, such as the geneticist's and obstetrician's.
Lippman believes that people other than the mother
decides which child is healthy or unhealthy, such as the
geneticists and
obstetricians .
After examining Lippman's argument against genetic testing and Wert and Fletcher's argument for genetic testing, Wertz and Fletcher would point out that Lippman's argument is formed on the basis that women in general cannot make their own free decision, and that society plays the ultimate role in deciding if a mother chooses to continue her pregnancy or abort the pregnancy.
Are you sure if this is a fact or is it your inference based on the two arguments?
Finally, Wertz and Fletcher would also argue that
Finally, Wertz and Fletcher
would also argue that
(they have already made their argument)
then to never be born in the first place
than to never be born in the first place
While the decision to abort a foetus or not is a very difficult decision to come to, Lippman does make an important argument in Mrs. Brown's case. While genetic testing has given Mrs. Brown the answers that she wanted, it did not provide her with enough time to come to a decision to abort her foetus or not. The decision to abort a foetus is in no way an easy decision in the first place. In Mrs. Brown's case, she had only 10 days to decide, and could not be given more time when Mrs. Brown pleaded with the doctors for more time.
I feel this paragraph is not required as it states the same points as the previous one.
As well, Mrs. Brown`s false ideas about Kleinfelter syndrome could only be a product of society as it was previously believed to lead to mental retardation but has since been discredited. The belief that the foetus will be retarded when born limits Mrs. Brown autonomy to decide accurately if she should abort or continue the pregnancy. Genetic testing for Mrs. Brown has made her more vulnerable to society's influences because even though it was explained what Kleinfelter was, Mrs. Brown does not possess the proper knowledge to make her decision about the foetus. This misinformation and pressure from society has only left Mrs. Brown less autonomous in her choices and thus does not give Mrs. Brown the full information to base her choices on.
The points in this paragraph are also stated earlier in the essay. It just lengthens the essay without any additional points.
Thus, I would agree with Lippman in this case because society has provided influence on Mrs. Brown
society has
providedinfluencedon Mrs. Brown
in making her decision----------------
Hey can you check my argument.
