The continuation of species is a biological function that is present in all humans. Common social norms presuppose the desire to have children is natural and should be encouraged. However, genetic complexity might compromise future offspring’s opportunity to have a satisfying life. If a child is born with a medical condition, such as Huntington’s disease, their quality of life is almost assured to be low due to physical and social complications arising out of the disease. Modern technology allows doctors to predict the probability of a certain medical condition in an offspring. As a result, both parents and doctors are faced with a moral dilemma, which stems from the inability to provide the child with a fulfilling life (Vaughn 490). Subsequently, the decision to make an abortion might be moral if it is established that there is a strong probability that the fetus will develop into a person afflicted by an incurable medical condition.
The technology that enables such a viewpoint to exist is known as Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD). For it to work a fertilized egg is essential since it will provide embryologists with tissue samples. Several cells are removed during a biopsy and are subsequently tested. The analysis of the sampled embryos will show whether there are any genetic mutations present. If the cells are affected, there is a high chance that the fetus will have a genetic condition. As a result, PGD allows doctors and families to decide whether to continue the pregnancy or terminate it before the embryos develop further.
The major reason why this technology is morally justifiable is the assumption that continuing pregnancy will almost guarantee that the offspring will have a specific medical condition. Considering that such diseases have an extremely negative effect on the quality of life, the morality of the decision to continue the pregnancy is compromised. First, the future child will be subjected to a life full of medical interventions aimed at alleviating the effect of the disease. Second, limited healthcare resources will be spent on countering an incurable condition when they could be used to treat other health problems. Following this line of reasoning, the logical deduction is that abortion is a moral choice for both society and the potential child.
However, such a viewpoint is immediately challenged by a belief that reproductive freedom is not respected if the law obligates people to terminate abortion in the case of a positive PGD result. Essentially, the decision to have children is devalued by a governmental directive to have as many healthy offsprings as possible. Furthermore, there is a high chance that the introduction of such a policy would lead to a decrease in the number of conceptions and an increase in the number of births outside of prenatal centers. The first outcome will likely stem from the fear of conceiving a fetus with a genetic condition that would have to be aborted. At the same time, the second one is the result of families’ desire to have children without fearing forced abortion.
The most reasonable compromise between the two extremes is to make this technology legal but leave the decision to parents. Some indications continuing pregnancy is a proper option (Vaughn 491). First, a positive PGD test does not guarantee that the fetus will have a debilitating condition. However, the family has to be prepared that the probability of genetic mutation is high. Second, it should also be taken into account that technology continues to evolve. Even though Huntington’s disease and other similar conditions have no known cure today, they may appear in the future. Third, there is a belief that any life is valuable whether it is affected by a serious medical condition or not. Subsequently, deciding that making an abortion is as unethical as condemning a future child to a life of suffering from an incurable disease.
However, all of these perspectives are based on assumptions that have low statistical evidence. If the PGD shows that the sampled cells carry mutated genes, in all likelihood the future child will indeed be a carrier of complicated disease. Even if the child is born without such defects, they will still carry the gene that might compromise the life satisfaction of their potential offspring. Finally, the limited nature of healthcare resources forces the adoption of a more practical viewpoint that distinguishes between medical issues that can be treated and those that can only be partially alleviated. Deciding that each life is worth living might seem ethical, but even this belief can be challenged when it becomes apparent that significant resources are spent on an incurable and avoidable problem.
Altogether, it should be evident that the morality of selective abortion and genetic screening is relative. In any case, this technology should be made available and legal, since it provides families with important information regarding their possible offspring. Even though terminating a pregnancy is unethical, subjecting a child to an incurable disease is also irresponsible. The availability of this technology is an opportunity for the healthcare system to warn parents of the individual and social risks while leaving the ultimate decision of whether to continue the pregnancy to them.
Work Cited
Vaughn, Lewis. Bioethics: Principles, Issues, and Cases. 5th ed., Oxford University Press, Incorporated, 2022.