especially for Tori & Tara :)
Collectively, address the questions at the end of the case. Each of you should address at least 2 questions and should respond to 2 other posts. Try to convince your classmates of a position with which you don't actually agree. ; )
1. I believe that Dr. T should act in accordance with the wishes of the couple, simply because that's what they truly seem to want. It may not be the greatest idea, but the couple seems adamant about what they want. If this is the route they'd like to take, then I'd let them.
ReplyDelete2. All three of these options have issues when it comes to morality. No matter which option you choose, someone in the world is going to argue with it as an issue of morality.
3. I believe that embryo splitting and delayed twinning is much less morally problematic than cloning via somatic cell nuclear transfer. I think this because cloning requires an intention to want the exact same person, whereas delayed twinning offers an option to someone who wants more than one child but is having trouble reproducing. The intentions are different, at least in my mind, thus making one less morally problematic than the other.
I agree with your answer to number three. The differences between the two rely on the intentions of either the parents, or whoever it is being cloned.
DeleteI agree with your stance on number one. The people seem educated about the subject and they also really want it. Doctors shouldn't stop people from going through with a procedure like this if they are educated enough about it, like they are
DeleteI definitely agree with the point that you made in number three. The intentions of your actions definitely is a huge factor on any decisions that you have to make.
DeleteI agree with number 2. It's very hard to make any decisions nowadays without having any moral issues attached.
Deletei agree with number 3, its way less morally problematic than cloning.
Delete1. I think Dr. T should act in accordance with the couple's wish. It is a solution that does no harm to either the parents or the children, and avoids unnecessary expenses and discomfort.
ReplyDelete2. I think embryo splitting is morally defensible as an adjunct to IVF and embryo transfer. In certain (albeit narrow) cases such as the one presented, it can be a solution to avoid excessive egg harvesting.
3. I do not believe embryo splitting is any more or less morally problematic than cloning via somatic cell nuclear transfer. Although they certainly have their subtle differences (embryo splitting being a combination of two parent's genetics but doubled, while cloning is a copy of another individual's genetics) they reach the same approximate outcome - two individuals who are genetically identical, though not necessarily identical in regards to age/experiences/environmental influences etc.
I like what you said on number three. Regardless of the intentions, the outcome is still the same--two genetically identical individuals.
DeleteI agree with you on the third question. While they may be two distinct procedures they both are arriving at the same goal.
DeleteI agree with you on number three. In either outcome, you still have someone who is genetically identical to you and that comes with many problems in itself.
Deletei agree with number 2
Delete1. I think that the doctor should act in accordance to the couple's wish because they seem very educated on it, they Karen T doesn't want to have surgery again to get more eggs, and they are willing to pay for the procedure.
ReplyDelete2. Personally, I think that all three of these have around the same morality. All three scenarios work for the same common goal of getting Karen T pregnant. All of them have there problems morally and some people would argue that some are worse than the others.
I agree with you on one I think that the doctor should do what his patients are asking of him. She isn't asking for anything against his beliefs and she isn't asking for anything too crazy so I agree that he should do as they wish.
DeleteI agree with you on number one. The doctor is definitely educated and should act in accordance to the couple's wishes. If he feels like he should not do it then he should give lay out of the negative sides of doing it. If the could still insists on going ahead then he should still do it.
DeleteOn number two I agree that they are all on the same spectrum, but I think that they definitely vary in morality.
Delete1. Even though I find it odd to have two children with identical genetic makeup years apart from one another, who am I to tell a family they're not allowed to have children. Dr. T should act in accordance with the wishes of the couple. If out of every solution, they agree that's the best, the Dr. should go along with it.
ReplyDelete2. I think that they're on the same spectrum. Basically, each of these practices exemplifies an unnatural way to become pregnant, so they'll be morally controversial in that sense. The couple definitely is aware of this going in though since they were trying IVF first.
3. To the public, embryo splitting and delayed twinning seems less morally problematic because it simply does not have the word "clone" in the description. It all comes down to the intentions though. With cloning, the intentions are to have an exact replica of the person being cloned. With embryo splitting and delayed twinning, the intentions are a last resort effort to have children.
I agree with you on number two. I think they are all morally on the same scale and some people may have a problem with these but they are all to achieve the same outcome.
DeleteI agree with your third point. However,what if the society wasn't against cloning people. Would you still believe that embryo splitting and delayed twinning are ok?
DeleteI agree with you on the second question. They all really have the same moral issues and embryo splitting doesn't really add any more moral issues than IVF.
DeleteI agree with your third statement. The word "clone" definitely has a negative stigma to it, although delayed twinning and embyro splitting are very similar.
Delete1. I believe that Dr. T should do what the couple wishes as long as he does not have any personal moral obligations to doing so. As long as the couples plan is actually plausible I believe that that doctor should do as his patients are asking.
ReplyDelete2. As far as embryo splitting, IVF and embryo transfer go I do not have any problems with them. I think that they are amazing technological advancements and can help provide couples with children that they couldn't otherwise conceive. All of these intentions are done to create human life and if a future parent is willing to go to these lengths to conceive a child then I believe that they should have the option to. The intention of these actions are all good so I do not see a problem with any of these, I believe that they are all amazing advancements in medical technology and I do not have a problem with any of them.
I agree that all three are amazing technological advances. I think others are uneasy about the idea of embryonic splitting as it is similar to cloning.
DeleteWhat would be some of the bad intentions that would cause you to think that the embryo splitting, IVF, or embryo transfer are not good actions?
Delete1. The doctor should not necessarily act in accordance with the wishes of the couple. If he believes that there is an issue with the proposed plan then he should voice his concern and refer them to another doctor if they still want to go through with the plan.
ReplyDelete3. I think that embryo splitting and delayed twinning would be no more or less problematic than cloning. They would both be done with the same intention and achieve the same outcome. They just go about it in different fashions. Changing the means doesn't really justify the end.
Why should the doctor not act in accordance with the wishes of the couple? It is their child, their money, and should be their decision. The doctor has no part in their decision he should not have "voice his concern and refer them to another doctor" instead he should do as the couple chooses as they and their child are the ones at risk for Huntington's disease.
Delete1. Dr. M should abide to the couple's wishes. I understand that it can be expensive and they do not wish to spend that kind of money and go through the process so many times. I definitely think the idea is a strange one. Although I look very similar to my older sister and some even think we are twins, I could not imagine my actual twin sister being a few years older than me. Then again, even though Tori and I have identical genes, we still are very different, even in physical features.
ReplyDelete3. I think that it's less problematic in situations where you are using embryo splitting in circumstance such as this. The couple are not splitting the embryos because they love that specific set of genes, they are going through the process for medical reasoning.
Why is it less problematic that they "are not splitting the embryos because they love that specific set of genes" and instead "they are going through the process for medical reasoning?" If I am developing a foot problem from wearing shoes with less arch support because they are my favorite and designer is that more of a problem if they were plain converse?
Delete1. I don't think Dr. M should should adhere to the wishes. I don't believe the couple really understand what they want to do. As I said in class, this case is really difficult for me to imagine. As a twin, it's hard imargining me or my twin sister being older than the other by years. While we are our own individuals, we undoubtedly have a bond like no other sibling. I believe that if an embryo was to be split up and separated between years, the two siblings would still share that "twin" bond, because they were essentially the same being. It's different from siblings that were naturally born years apart, but look very similar, because they were their own being initially, and were never physically connected in any form.
ReplyDelete3. I suppose delayed twinning is less problematic compared to cloning, but I can definitely see how problems could arise, especially medical ones, in the two. As for morally, I think they are equal. With delayed twinning, someone is deciding the fate for twins to essentially, not be twins. To remove such a significant, special bond for desire to have two "separate" children is morally unacceptable. That is definitely using a being (or two beings, really) as a means for a desire, which, according to Kant, is morally unacceptable.
Cloning is morally unacceptable as well, because it's not really creating the same being exactly how it is presently, but it starts as a human life does and grows. This idea of cloning can be abused, which means it can be morally unacceptable.
With the first question, although the couple may want to have multiple children in the future, at the core of this situation I believe they are solely focused on just having a child in general. Splitting up that embryo, while it could create future moral issues, undoubtedly gives the couple what they desire most at this point which is a higher chance of conceiving a child.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete1. If it is in fact legal for Dr. T to act in accordance with the couples wishes then I think that he should. He is not the one who has to go through the pain of the procedure or bear the financial burden. there's also no guarantee the first try will work so there might not be genetically identical children of different ages.
ReplyDelete3. I believe that they are on the same level of morality. To me if both methods achieve the same thing, like in this case. Where the end result is a genetically identical clone. The are both equally moral or immoral. The process which each take doesn't change that.
I do not believe that Doctor M should act in accordance with the wishes of the couple I believe that the division of the cells four times will undermine the fertility of the cells and the chance of successful growth that the parents are trying to achieve.
ReplyDeleteI think that delayed twinning is just as morally problematic as that of cloning. You are trying whether that is you intention or not to create the same person again. This is in no way helpful to any of the individuals that have to deal that there is another individual with their same DNA out there not by chance but by design and prehaps that design was because they are only good enough themselves but good enough to mimic the other.
You emphasize that there's a problem with having the same DNA as another person, but I don't see what problem arises from that. Its a given that the people born from this method will NOT be the same person, they will still have their own unique characteristics and personalities - so why is the possession of a unique DNA set such an important quality?
DeleteThe possession of a unique DNA set is such an important quality for physiological purposes. There needs to be a consideration as to the implication or conclusions the genetically same individual will gleen from their design. The individual sharing the same DNA needs to be considered because while they are different individuals knowing that your DNA is the same as another's by human choice can cause emotional turmoil. You no longer know that by chance you were conceived but instead by human intent. Why was your DNA chosen? Is it because your DNA is genetically better or is it due to memories associated with the other individual of the same DNA? Or just because an human experiment was conducted? There are so many different thoughts that can a cause powerful emotions in these clones that almost no other human has had to experience. Is it right to inflict upon others emotions that we could never possible have?
DeleteThe psychological effects of such an occurrence are projections at best; we can't say exactly what a cloned individual would feel about him/herself. Knowing that you were 'conceived by intent rather than chance' is a pretty flimsy worry...
DeleteWhy should it make much of a difference if your DNA was chosen rather than random? The choices of the parent matter here more than the action themselves. Good parents would not examine their child as an anomaly or experiment, while bad parents would; but it speaks nothing for the cloning itself, just the parenting.
Inflicting emotions that others cannot know themselves is also a pretty flimsy worry - we all possess unique emotional experiences that others cannot begin to understand. Should twins feel out of place because the majority cannot know the intimate sibling connection they have? Should someone who has a rare disease, such as CIP (cannot feel pain) feel unconnected to the general human experience?
The process of cloning is indeed a distinguishing feature, and unseen in today's world - but it is only another step in the ever-changing nature of life, and should not be overlooked simply because it is radically different from what we have experienced.
How is "Knowing that you were 'conceived by intent rather than chance'... a pretty flimsy worry"? Where there is intent there is always purpose. If there is a purpose to your existence and it was a purpose conceived by another human individual is that not more than a flimsy worry? A human being is not a divine individual or an uncontrollable cosmic force; a human is real and fallible. Knowing that a fallible individual thought up the purpose of your existence is to me cause for concern. This is why is should make a huge amount of difference if your DNA was chosen rather than by random chance.
DeleteIt is because we are fallible that we cannot inflict upon others the emotion that results from knowing a fallible individual gave a purpose to your existence. Twins do not have to suffer from knowing that their DNA was created with a purpose so why is it alright to do this to clones?
Also, I do not believe that CIP relates to what I am trying to say about humans emotions. That is something humans can experience but that most never will because they were not born that way.
It seems there is some confusion as to what you mean by 'conceived by intent rather than chance.' In one sense, you can say that anyone who has sex in order to produce a child has conceived by intent - they intended the conception. By this reasoning anyone who accidentally produces a child through sex conceived through chance - they didn't intend the conception. Cloning is a very deliberate process - the conception is intended, but the only difference is the DNA is also intended rather than chanced, and I am now guessing this is what you meant.
DeleteYour worry over humans being fallible is a bit exaggerated; supposing cloning becomes advanced enough to produce genetic identicals to the original, then the clone would have no more 'fallible possibilities' than anyone else - because reproduction itself is not infallible, there are still errors in the natural reproductive cycle, even if guided by a divine or cosmic force.
I feel my examples of twins and CIP were quite related to the argument you proposed. Your last sentence stated "Is it right to inflict upon others emotions that we could never possible have?" True, twins and those affected by CIP aren't the same as clones - but the essence is that they are all, as you nicely stated at the end, experiencing things no one else has had to. But that doesn't mean they should be considered missing out on the human experience.
Overall, you portend vague problems like emotional turmoil and angsty conflict, but we can't prove it is any worse or different than what anyone would deal with.
1) I believe that Dr. M should act in accordance to the couple wishes. Even if Dr.M has a different approach on what he should do, he should carry on with the procedure. This is the couple's decision not his, so he should do what the couple requests.
ReplyDelete3)I believe that embryo splitting and delayed twinning is less morally problematic than cloning via somatic cell nuclear transfer. While both positions may have a moral problem to it, I feel like with cloning you are just trying to replace someone that have already existed, while with delayed twinning you are just trying to have another child in the future.
Isn't it also possible though that you could be trying to replace someone that already existed through embryo splitting as well? In this situation if someone were to have a miscarriage, and another embryo was supplied in place of that lost child, wouldn't that be the same type of scenario?
Delete1. Yes, this is their decision. Dr. M is their physician, and should follow through with the couple’s wishes. Karen and Roger aren't physically harming anyone through these actions, though I do question the mental health/stability of these children (if there are multiple) as they grow older and must recognize that although they are identical to their siblings, they're not the same age.
ReplyDelete3. I believe that they are each equally problematic. Both methods ultimately obtain the same outcome. To the public, though, creating a child through embryo splitting simply sounds like a better option versus creating a “clone”.
To the scientific community, embryo splitting and cloning basically provide the same outcome, identical genetic copies of one particular set of DNA. If the public were educated more on the subject would one then be more problematic?
DeleteIf the public were to become more educated on the equality of embryo splitting and cloning, I believe that neither option would necessarily end up being "more" or "less" problematic.
Delete1. Yes Dr. T should go in accordance with the couple's wishes. Even though there are many risks, it is still what the couple wants and they are beginning to run out of options.
ReplyDelete3. I believe they are equally problematic, but they both have different problems. With cloning, there are plenty of expectations for the person to be the same because they are a clone. They also have the thought that are merely a replacement for the person they are a clone of. With delayed twinning, the effects are simply that it would be strange to have someone look like you but at a different stage of their life.
1. I think that Dr. T should act in accordance with the wishes of the couple. Knowing the costs, risks, and procedures that go along with IVF makes perfect sense as to why the couple is reluctant to go for another round of IVF.
ReplyDelete3. I think that embryo splitting and delayed twinning is less morally problematic than cloning via somatic cell nuclear transfer. In this situation I think that the former is less morally problematic that the latter because of Karen T and Roger T’s intent. Going in, the couple just wishes to have a child with their own DNA basically by any means necessary. The couple didn't go in wanting to have identical clone children; this just became an option when the IVF didn't work according to plan.
1. yes its his job
ReplyDelete2. if ivf hasnt worked then yes
3. yes, my brother and i are almost identical the only difference is that i am a little taller. it wasnt due to delayed twinning but if you didnt know that he was older we could legit pass as twins. so i dont see anything wrong with delayed twinning because it happens naturally at times.
1). I believe that the doctor should act in accordance to the couple's wish as they seem to know a lot of what they are talking about. Karen T stated she does not want to procedure with another surgery to get more eggs but is willing to pay for what needs to be done. If the couple has the education and the money to do so then I do not see the problem. Its kind of like the costumer is always right scenario.
ReplyDelete2). All three of the options to getting Karen pregnant have moral issues. One may seem worse than others but in the end something is flawed in the procedures and ways in which to get her pregnant.
3). I don’t see embryo splitting being any more or less morally problematic than cloning via somatic cell nuclear transfer. They all in a way want to create something whether to be an exact replica or just a baby, in an unnatural way. None of the options are any less morally wrong than another.