3 ms·

My first knee jerk reaction is that this is awful and unethical, but there are similar questions with possibly different answer: 1) Is it ethical for two deaf

My first knee jerk reaction is that this is awful and unethical, but there are similar questions with possibly different answer: 1) Is it ethical for two deaf persons to give birth to a child without screening for their genetic disease? 2) Is it ethical to create a child with disease, that guarantees his death? (Senescence)

Udo 14y ago
Like most ethics questions, I'd consider this area a matter of degrees. We probably have an easier time saying that ensuring your child's health and integrity is an ethical endeavor. Maximizing your child's stats on the other hand is probably questionable, not only because this has been associated with evil in the past, but also because we're not really all that good at judging consequences. With this, somewhat tenuous, idea of the upper end of the ethical spectrum in mind, it's easier to see that intentionally hurting your child is bad. Again, at the most extreme end, the bottom is made up of people who commit a willful physical act to rob their child of health and happiness. This is quite common post birth, but now it's also increasingly feasible to do in the womb. I'd say removing a child's hearing is in the same league as, say, removing a child's genitals (which is also common in large parts of the world). It's a malevolent act designed to rob your child of some aspect of its humanity, and the motives are also similar ("I want my child to be the same as me!", "I think it's better that way"). Slightly towards the gray area of the spectrum, but still by far on the negative side, are in my opinion people who willingly and intentionally pass on catastrophic genes to their children. It's really not all that different, except I'd compare it more to shooting a person with a weapon at a distance, where the former examples are more like pulling a knife and butchering someone with your own hands (in some cases literally). Now, your second question is the most interesting in my opinion. Is creating a child ethical at all because its suffering and eventual premature death seems predestined anyway? I'd argue that life - even at our current, very limited tech level - is indeed worth living and all things considered a positive thing. As badly designed as we are by nature, we're still a comparatively nice and diverse organism with amazing capabilities. And for a child born today, I hope that senescence will become a solvable problem within its lifetime.
bdcravens 14y ago
A bit confused by your referencing senescence, since that's just growing old. I digress ... As to #2 there's a huge difference between conditions that cause death. Some cause very early and painful deaths. I have Cystic Fibrosis, and I should be able to make it into my 60's (probably far beyond, but I'm assuming today's science). As my wife and I are considering children #2 is a very real question (let's say you don't die young, but have a lower health quality compared to most, and have tens of thousands of health costs every year with all the financial instability that comes with - would this be unethical to force on someone?)
- ordinary 14y ago
  A bit confused by your referencing senescence, since that's just growing old. Everyone is born with a fatal disease: mortality. The first and second questions asked in the grandparent's post can therefore be seen as similar, which, from a purely logical standpoint, should have similar answers. However, most people would say that it is not ethical to pass a specific fatal disease to your child, but that it is ethical to have a child at all, even knowing that it will die eventually.
7952 14y ago
Its a bit like the situation over abortion. The parents are allowed to act selfishly until a number of weeks into pregnancy. At which point the parents are required by law to act in the best interest of the child, which undoubtedly wants to survive. This is only ethically challenging is you believe that parents should act in a wholly unselfish manner, which is an unreasonable expectation. Doctors should do what is in the best interest of the parents, until such a point that the interest of the child is legally identified.

Udo 14y ago

Like most ethics questions, I'd consider this area a matter of degrees. We probably have an easier time saying that ensuring your child's health and integrity is an ethical endeavor. Maximizing your child's stats on the other hand is probably questionable, not only because this has been associated with evil in the past, but also because we're not really all that good at judging consequences. With this, somewhat tenuous, idea of the upper end of the ethical spectrum in mind, it's easier to see that intentionally hurting your child is bad. Again, at the most extreme end, the bottom is made up of people who commit a willful physical act to rob their child of health and happiness. This is quite common post birth, but now it's also increasingly feasible to do in the womb. I'd say removing a child's hearing is in the same league as, say, removing a child's genitals (which is also common in large parts of the world). It's a malevolent act designed to rob your child of some aspect of its humanity, and the motives are also similar ("I want my child to be the same as me!", "I think it's better that way"). Slightly towards the gray area of the spectrum, but still by far on the negative side, are in my opinion people who willingly and intentionally pass on catastrophic genes to their children. It's really not all that different, except I'd compare it more to shooting a person with a weapon at a distance, where the former examples are more like pulling a knife and butchering someone with your own hands (in some cases literally). Now, your second question is the most interesting in my opinion. Is creating a child ethical at all because its suffering and eventual premature death seems predestined anyway? I'd argue that life - even at our current, very limited tech level - is indeed worth living and all things considered a positive thing. As badly designed as we are by nature, we're still a comparatively nice and diverse organism with amazing capabilities. And for a child born today, I hope that senescence will become a solvable problem within its lifetime.

bdcravens 14y ago

A bit confused by your referencing senescence, since that's just growing old. I digress ... As to #2 there's a huge difference between conditions that cause death. Some cause very early and painful deaths. I have Cystic Fibrosis, and I should be able to make it into my 60's (probably far beyond, but I'm assuming today's science). As my wife and I are considering children #2 is a very real question (let's say you don't die young, but have a lower health quality compared to most, and have tens of thousands of health costs every year with all the financial instability that comes with - would this be unethical to force on someone?)

ordinary 14y ago
A bit confused by your referencing senescence, since that's just growing old. Everyone is born with a fatal disease: mortality. The first and second questions asked in the grandparent's post can therefore be seen as similar, which, from a purely logical standpoint, should have similar answers. However, most people would say that it is not ethical to pass a specific fatal disease to your child, but that it is ethical to have a child at all, even knowing that it will die eventually.

7952 14y ago

Its a bit like the situation over abortion. The parents are allowed to act selfishly until a number of weeks into pregnancy. At which point the parents are required by law to act in the best interest of the child, which undoubtedly wants to survive. This is only ethically challenging is you believe that parents should act in a wholly unselfish manner, which is an unreasonable expectation. Doctors should do what is in the best interest of the parents, until such a point that the interest of the child is legally identified.