Technology in terms of Human's Reproduction System

In the contemporary world, there numerous technological inventions that have been developed and these inventions have radically influenced a number of aspects in human life, to such an extent that they are making the world worth living. One of the elements that have greatly favored by science is the reproduction system, in such a way that human beings can seek genetic intervention in order to influence the genetic traits of their newborn. Consecutively, parents tend to be disappointed on every occasion their child fails to make it in life. The situation becomes even worse when the couple is historical and has only one child, whom in case of anything and he or she happens to fall ill to the extent that the possibility of surviving is close to none. Apparently, with the modern technologies, such a couple can still save the child by embracing the preimplementation genetic diagnosis process, which is a procedure that gives hope to disillusioned parents by giving them another chance of having another child that will be a perfect blood match to the dying child (Hashiloni-Dolev & Shkedi, 2007). Apparently, there are numerous moral and ethical issues concerning whether or not a couple should be allowed to use this procedure in order to conceive another child on the basis of just saving the life of another child. Some individuals strongly oppose this move while others support it. This paper supports the idea of having a savior child.

It is painful for a couple to watch one of its dear children dying, and this goes to the extent that the couple is psychologically affected, to such an extent that it may take it a number of years for them to accept that their child succumbed to the severity of a disease. Precisely, the shock of losing a child can negatively affect the parents for the rest of their life, even when intervention measures such as counseling are frequently embraced. Apparently, such a couple can seek any means that can promise to let its child survive; if there can be an availability of one. Considering that the world has greatly changed and the procedures such as preimplementation genetic diagnosis are readily available, such parents can embraced it as fast as they can in order to save the life of their child (Belkin, 2009). Actually, there is no any other available choice that parents with a sick child can embrace in order to save his or her life, apart from PGD.

Moreover, most individuals all over the globe embrace the use of embryo screening in order to select the gender of their child. In this connection, it is very unfortunate to hear some individuals who embrace this technology to condemn parents who pursue PGD in order to save the life of their dying child. If embryo screening is widely practiced, PGD does more good than harm since creating a child in order to save the life of another is more important compared to just choosing the gender of a child (Wolf, Kahn & Wagner, 2003).

Moreover, most individuals who are against PGD tend to argue that there is no way that parents will manage to love and bring up the savior child as they had catered for the older child. However, the opposers fails to contemplate that the donor child bears the tissue and characteristics of the former child, and there is no way that such parents can fail to love and cater for him or her like the way they had used to cater for the older child (Wolf, Kahn & Wagner, 2003). Consecutively, it is important to contemplate that the savior child is free from genetic diseases, and this factor a lone puts hope to the parents that they are bringing up a child who will not develop a genetic complication in the near future, making them to love him or her more (Bioethics Research Library, 2014). In addition to this, most opposers of PGD would recommend such a parent to consider the natural method of conception, and get another child as a replacement of the first one. Apparently, the opposers fail to understand that if the parents embrace the natural route, the risk of giving birth to a child with genetic disease is still on, and in case the second child follows the same suit of succumbing to the severity of the genetic condition anytime in the future, such parents will be more hurt before.

Alternatively, a couple may decide to get another child in a natural way, but may be  start considering aborting him or her soon after realizing that he or she might suffer from a genetic disease in future, and this will do more harm to them and the unborn child as well. Actually, Hashiloni-Dolev and Shkedi (2007) argued that going for a savior child reduces the cases of abortion from being propagated in the society. They argued claimed that in case one fails to implant a pre-embryo, it is morally equal to killing a more developed fetus. In addition, ruled out the arguments that embracing PGD is a form of an abortion, since an embryo is equal to a fully born child, and therefore, needs to have its human rights at the earliest point of conception. Instead, the duos claimed that the process of creating a savior child does not have any associated harms to the embryo, especially if both parents have agreed to take care and bring up the upcoming savior child. The entire process of PGD entails taking the stem cells from the umbilical cord.

Consecutively, embracing PGD to conceive a savior child is a good start for the new child. Precisely, the savior child will be glad to learn that he or she was born as a savior of another child`s live. Actually, rather than the savior child being treated as an instrument as most individuals put it, he or she will be treated as an icon (Pennings, Schots & Liebaers, 2002). The possibility of a good character or behavior of the savior child can be rooted from the notion that the decision of his or her birth was influenced by the intentions of saving another child`s life. No one cannot embrace the moral virtue of saving another person`s life and this means that the savior child question his or her parents` decision of creating her out of the tissue or genes of their first child without first seeking his or her consent .

Conclusion

It is, therefore, evident that having a child to save the life of another through preimplantation genetic diagnosis procedure does more good than harm, and should be embraced by parents. Precisely, creating a savior child by ensuring that a perfectly matched embryo is implanted into the mother has a number of life altering aspects for the child and the parents involved, and this includes the chances of curing a genetic condition. However, there are a number of ethical and moral issues that are associated with the decision and the procedure.

References

Belkin L., (2009). Having a Child to Save a Life. Retrieved from, https://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/29/having-a-child-to-save-a-life/

Bioethics Research Library, (2014). Is it ethical for parents to create a savior sibling? Retrieved from, https://bioethics.georgetown.edu/2015/10/is-it-ethical-for-parents-to-create-a-savior-sibling/

Hashioni-Dolev, Y. & Shkedi, S. (2007). On new reproductive technologies and family ethics: Pre-implantation genetic diagnosis for sibling donor in Israel and Germany. Social Science & Medicine, 65, 2081-2092.

Pennings G., Schots R., & Liebaers I., (2002). Ethical considerations on preimplantation genetic diagnosis for HLA typing to match a future child as a donor of haematopoietic stem cells to a sibling. Human Reproduction, Volume 17, Issue 3, 1 March 2002, Pages 534–538, https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/17.3.534

Wolf, S. M., Kahn, J. P., & Wagner, J. E. (2003). Using preimplantation genetic diagnosis to create a stem cell donor: Issues, guidelines & limits. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 31, 327-339.