Case Study Eugenics

Case Study Eugenics Paper

A married couple wishes to have a child; however, the 32-year-old mother knows that she is a carrier for Huntington’s disease (HD). Huntington’s Disease is a genetic disorder that begins showing signs at anywhere from 35-45 years of age. Its symptoms begin with slow loss of muscle control and ends in loss of speech, large muscle spasms, disorientation, and emotional outbursts. After 15-20 years of symptoms HD ends in death. HD is a dominant disorder which means that her child will have a 50% chance of contracting the disorder. Feeling that risking their baby’s health would be irresponsible, the couple decides to use in vitro fertilization to fertilize several of the wife’s eggs. Several eggs are harvested, and using special technology, only eggs that do not have the defective gene are kept to be fertilized. The physician then fertilizes a single egg and transfers the embryo to the mother. Approximately 9 months later, the couple gives birth to a boy who does not carry the gene for the disorder.

Is this a case of “Eugenics”? “The hereditary improvement of the human race controlled by selective breeding.” It is my understanding and belief that this is the beginning process into the Eugenics programing. Encouraging people within a certain status quo to create and reproduce a good birth also known as “positive” eugenics. In the form of ending certain disorders and disabilities by preventing and discouraging the less fortunate to reproduce which is also known as “negative” eugenics.

          Would it be acceptable for the parents to select for sex as well, or should they only select an embryo that does not have Huntington’s disease? How would this be different? Huntington’s disease is found predominantly in the European ancestry and this disorder is known to have a greater dominant effect on women than men. The parents knowing that it’s a 50% chance their child will contract Huntington’s disease they will go the safer route as to requesting the sex as well. The couple will have a better chance and the opportunity of birthing a healthy baby boy. Despite the sex, I believe they should select the embryo that does not carry the trait. Better yet, knowing Huntington’s disease is dominant in the female sex they should select the “positive” female embryo to reproduce and birth in order to end the disorder in the female gender.

With this Technology possible, would it be ethical for this couple to have a child without genetically ensuring it would not have the disease? Would it be ethical for a known carrier to have a child? As we already know it is costly to have this genetic testing done and it is only available and limited to those who are financially stable and fortunate enough to have a few of these tests done with the end result of selective breeding. Whether or not it is ethical for the couple to reproduce a child with or without this disorder depends on what is important for them as a couple. We do not know how much of their family influences and expectations are on this couple despite their culture and demands as to having this procedure done. To me, yes, it would be ethical for a known carrier to have a child. When a person without the means to have this testing done and who whole heartedly understand that there’s a 50% chance they may birth a child with or without this disorder shows the amount of faith they have in God and appreciation to having the opportunity to being a Mother, with unconditional love, empathy and compassion they will have and display even more for their child they will enjoy creating the greatest memories for these beautiful souls knowing they have a limited life existence on earth. This Mother knows she will want her child to have a full loving experience and her child will leave with these wonderful memories. God willing, the other 50% chance may also be that she will reproduce and birth a healthy baby girl or boy. As we see today, Technology can help in many positive ways and at the same time will isolate you from yourself and from your loved ones creating the next best scientific technology just to feel powerful and feed the ego.

What would the application of Act Utilitarianism to this situation look like? Act utilitarianism – a person ought to act so as to produce the greatest balance of good over evil. It depends on the mindset and the status quo who believe they are doing a justice for the greater good. I do believe it will become a continuous cynical cycle allowing those in power to rule over mankind and dictate what next steps to take in order to totally eliminate not only disorders but also who they deem is unfit to society. It will put restrictions on those of us who are religious and just believe in following those religious rules abided by God and not of man. It will desensitize people from love, feelings, emotions, intimacy, marriage which is sacred to us and will attempt to destroy morals and values in humanity. It’s unfortunate to see many who want to believe they can create a eugenics society without any long-term consequences. These genetic testing should not be approved knowing the cons are greater for the embryos that are not chosen for reproduction are donated for the purpose of research or left to be destroyed. The high demands that this status quo will expect not only the gender, color, hair, smartest, strength, etc. The obsession in vanity will mentally grow to push the limits further to create the best breed and inevitably eliminate the lower-class society.  

What would the application of Rule Utilitarianism to this situation look like? What would the rule applied be? Rule Utilitarianism – you ought to act by the rules, when you follow rules, you are morally producing good over evil. The rule would be for us who have faith in God to stand firm together and not allow the decisions to be left in the hand of those in power. Despite of our genetic imperfections, for those who still have the integrity and dignity for oneself and for humanity, believe in unity, diversity, love and compassion for society as a whole we will protect our communities and not allow Congress to pass legislation laws giving the government the right to make the unethical decision.

          What would the Kantian ethics to this situation look like? Focus on the process, not the end result. Do what’s right because it’s the right thing to do. Categorical imperative is what we use our own logic to determine what actions are morally right and wrong. Practical imperative – “act to treat humanity, whether yourself or another, as an end-in-itself and never as a means.” You must not use humanity for self-interest. The issues that we should focus on to improve the quality of social issues are those that have been created and contribute to these genetic diseases. Globally the governments should contribute more to humanity the communities that are affected by providing the resources that are needed to end poverty, lack access to healthcare, lack of education, suicide becoming productive in creating better ways to end salary wage gaps, homeless, and racism.

What would the application of The Divine Command Theory look like? A command is morally right if/f it’s commanded directly by God. Thou Shall not kill. God will wipe away the access to these technologies that many are abusing and experimenting with on humanity and all living things. God grants us the ability to sustain what is unrighteous. God will deliver us from all evil upon the hand of man on earth.

As we can see what is happening today in the United States has been ongoing as it is the norm in Third World Countries around the world for centuries. The political control of receiving the basic human needs to survive. The control of food, water, shelter, health, nutrition, safety, identity, growth, understanding, love, self-direction, freedom and justice.