Davis: Genetic Delemmas and the Child's Right to an Open Future Flashcards Preview

Biomedical Ethics > Davis: Genetic Delemmas and the Child's Right to an Open Future > Flashcards

Flashcards in Davis: Genetic Delemmas and the Child's Right to an Open Future Deck (13)
Loading flashcards...
1
Q

a moral dilemma for genetic counselors

- deaf parents who request help in ensuring a deaf child

A

usual way of understanding dilemma: conflict between beneficence (child’s quality of life) and autonomy (parent’s right to decide)
Davis’ suggestion: better apraoch, a conflict between parental autonomy and the child’s future autonomy (the right to an open future)

2
Q

Code of Ethics: National Society of Genetic Counselors

A
  1. respect client’s beliefs, cultural traditions, inclinations, circumstances, and feelings
  2. enable their clients to make informed decisions
    - provide facts
    - clarifying alternatives and consequences
3
Q

Code of Ethics raises some issues

A
  • some deaf families view themselves as a minority group that is part of a culture (576)
  • davis sets aside the case of “Aborting a hearing child” to focus on examining genetic evaluation of sperm and egg (and in vitro fertilization prior to implantation)
4
Q

the case of the deaf couple

A
  1. genetically deaf couple who seeks help in increasing the chances that they will have a deaf child
  2. a dilemma for the counselor
  3. on the one hand, they should respect the clients wishes and values
  4. on the other hand, they might feel supporting those wishes by helping to create a deaf child is no longer a value neutral approach
5
Q

Feinberg’s 4 kinds of rights

A
  1. rights adults and children have in common
  2. rights only children have (dependency rights)
  3. rights only adults can exercise
  4. rights held in “trust” (saved for the child until adulthood) (these rights in 4 are “right to an open future”)
6
Q

2 examples illustrating the right to open future (578)

A
  1. jehovah’s witness parents: refuse blood transfusion for child
  2. amish parents who refuse to send their children to school after 8th grade
    Davis: the children themselves are ignored here. how?
7
Q

amish parents who refuse to send their children to school after 8th grade

A
  • community would be destroyed by high school requirement

- the concern that children be prepared to participate in the political/economic life of the state does not apply here

8
Q

liberalism

A
  • political philosophy that emphasizes individual freedom and equality of all citizens
  • tends to emphasize the need for the state to be neutral and respect diverse ways of life
9
Q

conflict in liberalism

A
  • autonomy sometimes collides with diversity
  • we want diverse communities as options for people, but some options are anti-liberal: they deny choice
  • davis favors a priority of autonomy of individual over autonomy of group
    • supports the right of the child to get an education in order to make an informed choice
    • but… does this mean the state is no longer impartial/neutral (380)
10
Q

2 questions about moral harm of creating a deaf child

A
  1. can you even harm a potential person? how is the child harmed if the only other option was its non-existence?
  2. is deafness, or other disabilities, even a harm
11
Q

davis’ answer to the first question

A
  1. forces the deaf child into the parent’s version of a good life, thus violating kant’s principle that we should treat people as ends in themselves - as having value for their own sake (581)
  2. closes the child off to an open future of his/her own choosing. so, even if no person exists, the future autonomy of the person is violated
12
Q

is deafness a harm?

A
  • see the complexities on p. 582-583
  • deafness is a culture
  • deafness as a disabling only due to social contexts (the Martha’s Vineyard community)
  • Still: narrower choice of vocations/limited options
  • so, answer to the 2nd question is if deafness is disability, then it is wrong to cause. if it is a culture, the culture is comparatively narrow, and therefore a moral harm (583)
13
Q

concluding cases about right to open future

A

what about right to know genetic diseases? wait for the child to make that decision
- objections to sex-selection