Paper: An Interpretive Ethic for Genetic Decision Making

An Interpretive Ethic for Genetic Decision making In the Newsweek article, Making Responsible Decisions, author Mary Terrell White debates the issue of genetic counseling and its affect on the clients ability to make thoughtful and good decisions. Due to the frequency of medical advancements in technology, many new horizons are unfolding which demand legal and ethical limitations, including the genetic testing of embryos. White continues to describe this need to constrain on the uses of genetic testing with respect to fetal and human rights. However the way to construct such restraint is the topic of debate. Frankly, | am baffled by the way both those involved in science and the government constantly waiver between human rights and fetus rights. In cases such as changing a fetus to have down syndrome, White argues the morality of such actions due to fetus rights. She argues against the ethics of allowing genetic mutation such as requests for aid in conceiving children with disabilities because it would deliberately limit a childs potential in his or her lifetime. However, when the widely accepted medical procedure of abortion is put upon the table, the fetus is no longer a potential being with a life, but an innate object without rights or feelings. How is it that educated people can argue a point and directly contradict themselves simultaneously? Because the US government has agreed that abortion is legal and ethical, | do not doubt that genetic tampering will also gradually be manipulated as a beneficial medical advancement. | believe that altering peoples lives and futures is not within our human jurisdiction, but just as taking babys lives, it will eventually be accepted. With this in mind | will no longer argue that it is wrong to tamper, but | will agree with White in that this new phenomenon needs to be monitored and regulated. On the aspect of counseling, | do agree that moral and emotional consequences need to be address because we have such emotions. White says that without addressing such feelings, the decision is degraded to nothing more than medical jargon. | believe this also happens in abortion counseling many times. This nondirective approach maybe cautious on legal terms, but it doesnt facilitate to the needs of those clients. As time progresses, many new medical advancements with uncharted territory will spark debate among the nation. We have already played God by allowing abortion so who is to say it will stop with genetic manipulation? Therefore, medical boundaries need to be placed around the sanctity of morals, if any still apply in the scientific world, and kept to despite new technology and changing fascinations. Without such rules, technology could destroy the only thing that makes us human; our originality! ...