Ethical Question about Reproductive Choice

[Lyric]

Let's say that Woman X and Man Y both have cystic fibrosis, and that it's been genetically confirmed that they are homozygous for the trait. Translated to real life, this means that EVERY biological child that they have WILL have cystic fibrosis--an expensive, often painful, and inevitably fatal condition.

Should they be allowed to have kids? If so, should they be allowed to collect disability for those kids? Even if they KNEW ahead of time that there would be problems, and counted on the disability money to help raise the kids? To take it even further--should they be allowed to have IVF procedures done in order to have kids that are guaranteed to be seriously disabled? IVF is relevant because 97% of men with CF have deformed vas deferens tubes, and although their sperm are normal, the tube malformation inhibits the delivery of such.

Note: adoption is not usually an option for CF patients, because most adoption agencies won't GIVE kids to sick people.

I am merely curious just how "pro-choice" DU truly is.

[Coexist]

1. why am I allowed to choose for them?

I choose not to answer

[Lyric]

3. Under current law, you aren't.

This is an ethical hypothetical.

[RB TexLa]

29. Let's hope it stays a hypothetical

[D-Lee]

33. The closest to "not my choice to make" is the third from the bottom

I answered "This is confusing as hell, and maybe the issue isn't as black and white as I originally thought." Seemed as close to your response as permitted by the survey answers.

Moral and ethical choices ... when can we make them for other people?

I thought that was what "pro choice" and "freedom of religion" was about.

But, the issue of medical treatment for children with disease is a different issue and might call for a difference answer.

[Taverner]

2. You can't enforce morality

All you can do is suggest things

But having said that, I think its immoral and unethical to have more than 2 kids\

Flame away

[B o d i]

4. If they knew that, why would they WANT to have children together?

In your hypothetical, are they sadists who enjoy making other living creatures suffer?

[LisaL]

6. There are many people with genetic disorders who still want to have

children.

[B o d i]

10. You didn't address my question at all. nt

[LisaL]

13. I am not sure what is there to answer.

Why do people want to have children at all?
:eyes:
Just because someone has a genetic disease doesn't mean that desire to have kids just turns off.

[Lyric]

17. I was going to say the same thing.

The urge to reproduce/raise children is super-strong in many people, disabled or not.

[Quantess]

49. The desire to drink is very strong for alcoholics.

[LisaL]

50. And that's why they drink alcohol. What is your point, exactly?

[Quantess]

53. Just because someone has a desire to reproduce, does not mean they should follow through.

Self-control. Self-discipline.
I could say more, but that is my point.

[wuushew]

16. Mental illness could cause the same end result as sadism

Indifference is not malice.

[Quantess]

44. Don't be so quick to judge. Statistically, about half of all pregnancies are unplanned.

But, I agree with your sentiment that it is a bit sadistic to intentionally try to conceive a child in this example.

[xchrom]

5. this is an hypothetical -- but i am harsh about some few things.

it's not ok to bring suffering into the world that way.

it's just not

[sandnsea]

7. IVF shouldn't create sick kids

It's unethical and doctors certainly can and should oppose that. But if the people decide otherwise, nothing can be done about that.

[omega minimo]

8. "I am merely curious just how "pro-choice" DU truly is."

:wtf: does that mean?

[LisaL]

9. Apparently, to some choice means anything goes.

[Lyric]

11. Seems pretty straight-forward to me.

But let me use different words: I am curious as to the number of DU'ers who believe utterly in hands-off reproductive choice, as opposed to those who believe that there should be some legal limits on breeding.

[omega minimo]

15. sounds like you need to educate yourself on the topic and quit being so damn flippant about it

your either/or crap isn't even in the ballpark


"the number of DU'ers who believe utterly in hands-off reproductive choice, as opposed to those who believe that there should be some legal limits on breeding."

[Lyric]

18. Oooookay.

If you don't want to answer the uncomfortable question, then don't. Attacking me for *asking* the question is ludicrous.

[omega minimo]

32. reread what i wrote until you understand it. considering your self "attacked" is even more ludicrous

I challenged your comprehension of the issues. Your explanation showed it's superficial and flippant.

Your bogus poll uses false assumptions and trivializes the realities of the subject.

Don't flatter yourself: "If you don't want to answer the uncomfortable question, then don't." I'm callin BS.

It wouldn't hurt you to learn a bit more or think a bit more about it. That's encouragement, not attack. There's lots of folks/DUers who are casual about this, misinformed and use it as an entertainment device as you have here.

No more kicks for you. So I'll edit:

To #35
I went back and reread, was gonna spell it out for you. But it's all there.

[Lyric]

35. Okay. Let's go back and re-read what you wrote.

"WTF does that mean?????"

and

"sounds like you need to educate yourself on the topic and quit being so damn flippant about it

your either/or crap isn't even in the ballpark"

You really didn't SAY much of ANYTHING. The closest you came to stating any actual position/opinion was to vaguely imply something about my "either/or crap" (a subjective designation that you did not bother to actually explain) and then to stomp off in a huff and question my education/intelligence when I noted that you totally avoided actually *answering* the question I asked, as well as giving ANY sort of indication about what your problem is.

So what, pray tell, IS your point?? I not only re-read, but also re-POSTED the ENTIRETY of what "you said." There's nothing there, other than some vague criticism of me in which you don't actually bother to explain WHAT you're objecting to and WHY.

And then you have the utter gall to question *my* education.

:eyes:

Grow the hell up.

[Marrah_G]

12. Legally they can- ethically they should not.

No doctor should ever perform IVF if they KNOW the child will have a painful and fatal condition.

Now I know the point you are getting at.

Legally what the mother did was okay.

HOWEVER, that does not exempt her from being criticized for making a very selfish and deranged decision that hurt a number of children.

Legally she can do it....and legally 99 % of the country can tell her what a fucking asshole she is for doing it.

The doctor who implanted the embryos should have his/her license revoked. The Doctor was fully aware of the risk of long term harm to the children.

[Lyric]

14. Oh, I don't argue about the ethics of OctoMom

(god that sounds like a super-hero, lol) but I have heard an awful lot of stuff lately that seemed indicative of a desire to pass legislation to prevent this sort of thing from ever happening again.

That's what I'm wondering about, really. There's a pretty big difference between disapproving and trying to legislate that disapproval into law.

[BalancedGoat]

19. I wouldn't support legal restrictions.

Though I would hope that IVF clinics' own ethical guidelines would prevent them from participating in this hypothetical procedure.

[Lyric]

24. Indeed. But then again, it's always possible to go to another country

with less ethics for the procedure. There will *always* be someone willing to provide a service if USA docs won't. Not everyone in the world is expected to adhere to our standards.

But, assuming the parents are citizens, then the resulting babies would also be US citizens, with full rights to collect disability, etc.

It's definitely not an easy question, nor was it meant to be. Some people are taking offense, but that was not my purpose. My purpose was to get people really *thinking* about this stuff--about what it really means to be pro-reproductive freedom. It's not something many of us consider in-depth, you know? It's about as hard as being pro-free speech when you're in a room full of loud and viciously anti-Semitic Holocaust Deniers, Racists, Misogynists, and Homophobes--you know, the Republican National Convention.

[BlooInBloo]

20. Bait and switch...

You advertise an "ethical" question, then pose a jurisprudential-design question.

(For the slow: The easiest way to deliver the advertised goods would have been to ask "Should they have kids?".)

[EFerrari]

21. Why are you focused on choice and not on medical ethics?

This woman is clearly mentally ill. What about her doctor?

Why would you gage "choice" by someone who is clearly not the norm and someone whose choice is probably compelled by her illness?

:wtf:

[Lyric]

25. Okay--then change my example to "mentally ill people."

Should we allow mentally ill people to have children? What kinds of mentally ill people? How functioning must they be?

It's not as easy a call as you're making it out to be.

[EFerrari]

26. Why not just change it to sterilizing people you don't like?

Worked for Nazi Germany.

[Lyric]

27. Why would I do that?

*I* am for 100% reproductive freedom. Others around here seem to feel that there should be limits. I hope you didn't get the impression that I agreed with them?

[EFerrari]

30. I apologize that I haven't been following this "take her rights away" discussion

very well.

It's amazing, once people are offered a series of ways to oppress others, how they will just jump in and do it. It's the Stanford torture experiment replicated.

[Lyric]

31. I think a lot of people have confused the

"I think her choice sucks" position with the "I think her choice sucks, AND I think we should legislate away the right to make sucky choices like that." position.

The former is reasonable and fair. The latter is the road to tyranny.

[omega minimo]

48. the former is none of your business. the fact that you think it is, is the "road to tyranny"

[EmeraldCityGrl]

22. Sometimes you have to trust that most

people are reasonable and will make good choices. There are always the exceptions, but legislating something like this
could get very ugly. You would have to define "sick" so specifically as not to infringe on the rights of those that do not
view themselves as sick or disabled. An example that comes to mind are short statured or Little People. There are those
that would deny them the same basic human rights we all should enjoy because of perceived disabilities. Those perceptions
would be wrong and would only serve to complicate their lives and open the door for bigotry.

[AlCzervik]

23. i am pro choice i am also pro common sense.

i'm not telling anyone they should or should not have kids but using some common sense would be a good place to start.

[pipi_k]

40. Exactly how I see it

People should always have choices, and part of getting to choose means they act like adults and use common sense, no matter what the choices are...

[rebecca_herman]

28. Legally vs ethically

I don't think the law should interfere with people deciding to becoming pregnant. I'm perfectly ok with a doctor refusing to participate for ethical reasons however. In such a case if the couple cannot adopt and really wants kids, I think donor eggs/sperm are a better choice... but I don't think there should be a law against it.

[quaker bill]

34. I do not want government

to have such power. However it would be more humane and ethical for them to abstain.

[Old and In the Way]

36. I vote for intensive education and adoption.

Really, an interesting moral dilemma you have posited. If this is guaranteed hereditary, I can't think anyone would purposely choose to continue this condition on to future generations. That would be a selfish act, IMHO. Far better to adopt in this case. OTOH, I can't see the state demanding forced terminations, but, in these days of limited healthcare budgets, should the taxpayer be on the hook for potential healthcare bills that could go into the 6-7 figures when this precondition is known to exist?

[Lyric]

37. Adoption is not a feasible possibility in this case, unfortunately.

Agencies just don't give kids to sick people who are destined to die before middle age. I suppose some rare private adoption could theoretically be possible, but realistically, how many birthmothers are going to give their babies to sick people?

This is the dilemma, sadly.

[rebecca_herman]

38. I do think donor eggs and/or sperm are an option though?

If the couple could find a fertility doctor willing to treat them, then I'm sure they could get access to an egg or sperm donor through a fertility clinic (sperm donor probably being the easiest in this situation). I do think a donor is the most ethical choice in this situation if the couple feels they must have children. I'm just very uncomfortable with there being a law that mandates who can reproduce and who can't.

[LisaL]

47. If the people are likely to die young, should they be able to adopt?

Who is going to take care of the child if they die? By the way, many posters here suggest adoption as some sort of easy alternative to having natural children.
Since when is adoption an easy process?

[pipi_k]

39. I didn't cast a vote because there was no answer for how I feel about it

I knew someone who had a little girl with CF.

I didn't see it, but a friend told me one time about an incident involving this kid's intestines coming out her rectum and the mom and the friend having to stuff them back in.

I guess you haven't quite lived until you've gotten to stuff your own kid's intestines back in her body, but anyway...

So this girl did manage to live to her early 20s. Then she died.


People can do what they want, I guess. This person had no way of knowing her daughter would have CF. If people know it and want to subject themselves, their families, and the child him/herself to the same fate, then I guess it's their business.

As long as they are able to pay for whatever treatment the child would require.

Notice I said if they KNOW the child will be disabled.

sometimes things happen and we don't know how it will turn out.

Willfully bringing a disabled child into the world...I think it sucks, but people do selfish things every day.

:shrug:

[Lyric]

41. With CF, if you're homozygous recessive, and so is your partner, then

you really do KNOW that the kids will be affected. It's a Mendellian trait, so if "C" is normal and "c" is cystic fibrosis, then two "cc" parents will always have "cc" children. Healthy people have CF children sometimes because they're heterozygous--they have "Cc" genes, which means that 25% of their kids will have CF, 50% will be carriers of the gene, and 25% will be totally normal.

[anonymous171]

42. I don't believe in eugenics. nt

[zagging]

43. I'm a true liberal

I think anybody should be able to do anything as long as no one else has to pay for the consequences, and as as long as nobody's rights are infringed.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

45. women have the right to choose

[Eryemil]

46. The parents with cystic fibrosis should be charged with child abuse and manslaughter

...if they attempt to have children.

[LiberalPersona]

51. If a couple

have kids, with full knowledge that they will pass on something fatal to them, I consider that a form of child abuse.

[Greyhound]

52. As with most, if not all, ethical questions there is no answer possible in a poll format,

and attempting to steer debate through the use of one is disingenuous at best.

[Two Americas]

54. allowed?

Allowed.

hmmmm...

Allowed?

Let's make a list of what people are allowed to do. Everything else will be illegal, and whatever it takes to stop illegal things will be done.

And this one woman, and her thinking is what we should all be worried about?

[LeftyMom]

55. Two issues at stake:

1. Do they have a right to attempt to start a family? Yes. If they could do so without intervention, they could go for it. They really, really shouldn't, but they can.

2. Does a doctor have an ethical obligation to say no in that circumstance? Yes. The doctor could guide them toward a more acceptable option (maybe CF- donor sperm where the child would only be a carrier? That would also preclude the need for IVF.) that would result in a healthy outcome. While the parents have rights, the doctor also has professional obligations that would preclude knowingly taking an action that would lead to an unacceptable outcome. A doctor is not a vending machine for medical procedures, they do have to follow ethical guidelines.

[4lbs]

56. Since the child will only have CF if it gets it from both parents, why couldn't the parents do this?

Have two children, but not together:

Have one child from the mother's egg, fertilized via IVF from donor sperm, not the husband's.

Have a second child via IVF from the father's sperm and a donor egg?

That way, both children won't have CF.