Is PGD a morally acceptable Method in Family Planning?
Imagine a world without incurable diseases. Imagine a world without serious sufferings. Imagine a world where parents don't have to take the burden of a morbid or disabled child. - This has been an alluring vision ever since and scientists all over the globe do research on its implementation. By now we know on the one hand about avoidable risk factors that support the outbreak of certain diseases such as smoking or alcohol consume whilst pregnant; on the other hand we have discovered that mutations of human genes can cause physical and mental illnesses of any kind. Since the early nineties the so called preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) makes it possible to examine certain characteristics of fertilised ovules outside of the mother's womb and to destroy abnormal embryos in advance of an ordinary pregnancy. However, this method is on no account morally acceptable in family planning, because it marks a new form of eugenics.
The above paragraph is the introduction for my academic essay about PGD. I'd like you to comment on style and grammar and punctuation. Did I manage to make myself clear?, etc. Thanks a lot.
By now we know o On the one hand, modern society understands about avoidable risk factors that support the outbreak of certain diseases, such as smoking or alcohol consumption whilst pregnant; on the other hand, we have discovered that mutations of human genes can cause physical and mental illnesses of any kind.
Wait a minute... maybe I think it should not be in the "on the one hand, on the other hand" format... maybe it should be:
Modern society understands about avoidable risk factors that support the outbreak of certain diseases, such as smoking cigarettes or drinking alcohol whilst pregnant; similarly , we have discovered...
I also think you should change the beginning so that it does not tire the reader out with too much repetition; repetition is not good at the start of an essay:
Imagine a world without incurable diseases -- without serious sufferings, and without parents having to take the burden of a diseased or or disabled child.
Even this is not quite right; it is a tough subject, because, for example, it can be offensive to many people for you to suggest that disabilities somehow make life not worth living.
Get very thorough understanding before you continue. Check out the Wikipedia entry about this.
Good luck!!
Thank you for your comment -
I am just wondering: I did the repetition of "imagine a world" at the essay's beginning for purpose because I thought this creates a certain effect of interrest or suspense. I know this figure of speech (?) from German writing. It is really thought to be "boring" in English to do this?
The sort of repetition you are talking about is called anaphora, and it is a perfectly valid way of catching the reader's interest. I think your problem here is that you don't do it enough. If you had repeated the same phrase three or four times at the beginning of each sentence, it would be obvious that you were deliberately building up a rhythm. If you only do it twice, though, it is easy for the reader to think that you just couldn't think of a better way to phrase the second sentence!
I'd leave this as is "the burden of a morbid or disabled child." You are not saying that life is a burden for the disabled, only that raising a disabled child is more of a burden on parents than raising a normal child. This is perfectly true. It might be a burden they choose to bear lovingly, but it clearly does take more effort to look after a child that is different.
"However, this method is on no account morally acceptable in family planning, because it marks a new form of eugenics." So? This is not a valid reason for saying that it is not morally acceptable. There is nothing wrong, in theory, with eugenics, which merely means "good genes." Eugenics has a bad reputation because the people who originally pursued it sometimes had racist ideas about what constituted "good" genes, and because they often pursued their agenda without regard to the rights of other people. It is one thing to try to ensure every child is born healthy. It is quite another to decide to execute everyone who suffers from a genetic disorder or disability.
This is not to say that you can't argue that the method is morally unacceptable, but you are going to have to come up with a more coherent set of reasons if you hope to write a convincing essay.
The thing I mentioned about the repetition... I thought it seemed too cumbersome to repeat the whole phrase. It works better if the part that is repeated is only one or two words. But really, that was just my sense of it. It is no big deal.
I got some good insights from reading your post and Sean's...
I am still thinking about the anaphora - but anyway I was reweriting the introduction and changing its issue and thesis statement slightly to avoid the eugenic disussion and maybe to make it more debateable:
Should the German government stick to its ban of the PGD method?
Imagine a world without incurable diseases. Imagine a world without serious suffering. Imagine a world where parents do not have to take the burden of a chronically ill or disabled child. - This is an alluring idea of medical science and scientists in many countries do research in order to come closer to this vision. Nowadays, modern society understands about avoidable risk factors that support the outbreak of certain diseases, such as smoking cigarettes or drinking alcohol whilst pregnant; similarly, we have discovered that mutations of human genes can cause all kinds of physical and mental illnesses. Since the early Nineties, so called preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) enables us to examine certain characteristics of fertilised egg cells outside the uterus and to destroy abnormal embryos before a pregnancy has even started. However, the German government should stick to its ban of the PGD method because this is by no means a morally unproblematic method of family planning.
Topic Sentence I: PGD is resulting in contempt for human life.
Opposing Argument: PGD allows couples at risk of passing on serious genetic diseases to have children not affected by it.
Topic Sentence II: Favouring embryos considered healthy will lead to the creation of "designer babies".
What to you think? Develpoing of the TS works quite well so far and I am taking care not to create a slippery slope in TS II with having precise arguments.
Imagine a world without incurable diseases -- a world without serious suffering, a world where parents are not burdened with chronically ill or disabled children. T his is...
Well, in Wikipedia I read that some scientists think that PGD should be mandatory in certain cases. Do you think that it should be banned everywhere? Why not solve the problem of designer babies by only allowing PGD for serious, life threatening issues?
The best advice I can give is to find an article that argues against it, cite it as a main source, and use it as a guide to help you avoid slipping on that slope you mentioned. Model your essay after an article, but not in a way that is "stealing ideas" or anything. It has already been written about, so, there is a beaten path along that slope.
The devaluing of human life argument should be a fairly strong one, so you should definitely include that, and I like the fact that you anticipate the opposing argument.
Why do you think of designer babies as a problem? A lot of people seem to have a strong emotional reaction against the idea, but I've never heard a convincing logical argument against it. If you have such an argument, then that's fine, but make sure you do not make unwarranted assumptions or end up with circular reasoning.
You should probably have a third argument. There is something about sets of three that is very appealing, and your case will seem stronger if you can add in an extra point in favor of your position. If it is a bit weak, try sandwiching it between two stronger ones that can act as support pillars for it.
Good luck. I look forward to reading your first draft, if and when you post it here.
That's an interesting idea from Sean... I guess, strictly speaking, "designer babies" are not bad. I never thought of it that way. But the term "designer baby" is, I assume, used in order to show that the sacredness is being taken out of life -- relating back to that concern of devaluation.
I suppose that, in the future, people will laugh about the primitive notions that made us argue in the 21st century about whether or not PGD was ethical. In the future, it will probably be standard practice.
There are some potential problems with designer babies. For instance, if everyone decided to choose the exact same characteristics for their children, this could reduce genetic diversity, making the population into a monoculture that is more vulnerable to epidemics. However, given that most markets seem to encourage a diversity of products and designs, I'm not sure this fear is well founded. It can also be taken as an extension of the devaluing life argument, which is fine. Too often, though, the phrase "designer babies" is used as if it is self-evidently a bad thing, which is not the case.
Hello, and thank you so much for your remarks ... @EF_Sean: I have to follow the standarts of my teacher and he wants us to write an essay with the following structure: Intro, 1st paragraph (my view), 2nd paragraph (opposing view), 3rd paragraph (my view again), Conclusion - therefore I think I can't really add a third "big" extra- point of my position even If I like your thought ... Anyway. I didn't really think about posting my whole essay because I thought it woule be too much. But I felt encouraged by your words so here it is: (It is somehow the third draft [and I hope close to the final one] already as I had some discussions with fellow students in the last week. Still I am very keen to hear what you think ... Thank you ...
Should the German government stick to its ban on the PGD method?
Imagine a world without incurable diseases, a world without serious suffering, a world where parents are not burdened with a chronically ill or disabled child. This is an alluring idea of medical science and scientists in many countries do research in order to come closer to this vision. Nowadays, modern society understands about avoidable risk factors that support the outbreak of certain diseases, such as smoking cigarettes or drinking alcohol whilst pregnant; similarly, we have discovered that mutations of human genes can cause all kinds of physical and mental illnesses. Since the early Nineties, so called preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) enables us to examine certain characteristics of fertilised egg cells outside the uterus and to destroy abnormal embryos before a pregnancy has even started. However, in Germany the government should stick to its ban of the PGD method because this is by no means a morally unproblematic method of family planning.
PGD is resulting in contempt for human life. When undertaking the embryo screening it is essential to extract a surplus of human ovums from the ovaries and to fertilise them to guarantee a certain success rate of the method. But usually a maximum of 3 to 4 embryos are chosen for implantation into the uterus; the implantation of more than that is linked to significant health risks for the pregnant woman. The destruction of potential life, and even of healthy life, is apparently accepted, which diminishes the individual worthiness and uniqueness of each embryo. Furthermore, the selection of embryos for implantation mandates the selection of healthy ones and the rejection of those that are (potentially) defective. Such a procedure discriminates against the disabled because they are classified as "unworthy of life" - a morally problematic way of thinking that the Holocaust should have taught us to avoid.
For a family already coping with a child who has a genetic defect (e.g. Down's syndrome) or who is at risk of an inherited disorder (e.g. Huntington's chorea) the PGD method provides a comparatively safe way of having children that are not affected by these illnesses. Embryo- screening supports the parents to start a family and eliminates the fear that offspring may be disabled; heredopathy need not necessarily mean couples must forego having children just to be on the safe side. Thus, PGD is just a logical and responsible way to have a healthy baby with a promising future, which families in Germany should also be able to profit from.
Favouring embryos considered healthy (will) lead to the creation of "designer babies". Developments in genetic research in the recent past prove the definition of "disease" turns out to be a very subjective one. In the UK the first female breast cancer gene- free baby was already born in December 08, although breast cancer has an uncertain risk of development and can often be treated successfully. In the U.S. parents even select the sex of an embryo in the absence of any (sex- linked) disease, just for purpose of "family balance". At this point a moral line has been crossed. However, simply banning PGD, as we have done in Germany, can prevent us from increasingly exhausting medical possibilities so that the lines between what is a serious health problem, what is a mild or treatable disease and what is purely a trait or genetic characteristic don't blur any further.
Are children at risk of being viewed as products of design rather than wondrous creations in the long term? For sure this question cannot be answered "yes", but nor can the answer be "no", which should make us think. PGD places society atop a slippery slope that might lead to genetic enhancement and human control of evolution. Germany, being a modern state, has the chance to function as role model by sticking to the ban of the PGD method, demonstrating that "being different" is part of mankind and should be accepted naturally.
"a morally problematic way of thinking that the Holocaust should have taught us to avoid." Avoid comparing things to the Holocaust, unless you are talking about actual genocides.
Your opposing view isn't really connected to your essay that well. In part, this is because it is an unrelated argument in favor of PGD, rather than a direct response to your own arguments. A better opposing view might include any or all of the following:
- A statement that embryos are little more than groups of cells unable even to feel pain, and so are not particularly possessed of any "individual worthiness."
- A statement that this practice does not in fact constitute discrimination against the disabled, as the embryos are not, in the pre-implantation stage, meaningfully human to begin with. Ensuring that people are born with disabilities in no way discriminates against those who have already been born disabled.
- A claim that PGD could eventually lead to the elimination of all genetic diseases, as well as a dramatic reduction in diseases that are not wholly genetic, but that are influenced by genetic predispositions.
This way, the opposing arguments you give aren't random reasons to favor PGD but rather direct counters to your own points. Obviously, you would then have to rewrite your third paragraph to focus on providing counter-counter arguments that would show why the above statements are incorrect and your own view right.