Ethical Essay

I was reading through some articles on how genetics have had a huge impact on a person of why they are the way they are. I came across one article that stated if a child is born handicapped due to a genetic defect that should have been detected by his mother's doctor, should the child be allowed to sue for damages? When I saw this I thought that it was insanity for a doctor to be blamed for someone having certain special traits to them. I looked up other peoples outlooks on the issue and here is what I found was viewpoints from other people interpretation of it.

"As I sit here looking for research for Wrongful Life for my this ethical essay. I was disturbed by the issues that any parent would even consider the thought to choose if our child should be or not be. My stomach has turned in knots for the Fact that if you choose to play you must take responsibility for whatever may happen after you play. Sex is not a toy that most people take it to be it is an act of love and if a child be conceived through the grace of god then through the grace of god shall you find the strength to care for the child that has been born onto thee. Further more the reason that I can say that you find the guidence you need to handle the challenging tasks of takeing care of a child or even a disabled child is I DO IT EVERY DAY AND I HAVE 1 DISSABELD CHILD AND 3 SMALLER CHILDREN. MY first born child at 18 years old and have had 10 years of doing what other people won't do because they don't want to. A child is a bleesing and should always be looked upon as such. And also one of the TEN COMANDMENTS says THOU SHALL NOT KILL...... "(Maurice Bernstein)

"My answer in this case would be no. I realize that this is a very sensitive subject for some and I can sympathize with both sides of the spectrum. I think it is interesting that the common denominator for all the responses is that they are more happy having and loving their child even with defects than not wanting them at all. In my limited understanding of genetic testing, it is the parent’s responsibility to ask their doctor for these tests to be performed. I believe that it also is the parent’s job to be mindful of their own genetic history so that they may inform their physician of possible defects. Genetic testing is a relatively new science, and it is my understanding that there are often skewed results in this tests. I do not feel that this is the physician’s or parents’ fault. It is impossible at this stage for any doctor to ensure parents that their child will be 100% perfect. When two people decide to have children together, they are assuming the risks some possible birth defects. Does this mean they are liable to be sued by their progeny if they are born with a defect? I think not. My belief is that life is the greatest gift that can be given. Someone raised an interesting point that a child that was aborted is not able to sue for wrongful death, so how can a child born with a defect sue anyone for wrongful life? "(Jeffrey W. Hilburn II )

"Most everyone on the list seems to be pretty much focused on their opinion or their belief about this topic. However, my understanding of the purpose of bioethics is to try to reach a reasoned - not emotional - decision about what options are best out of a selection of potentially all unpleasant choices. The "best" option is generally the one that most closely reflects the societal moral values and does the most good with the least harm. The discussion before us is not supposed to be about whether abortion is right or wrong, or whether the mother SHOULD have the right to abort an impaired child/fetus, or even whether the physician should counsel a couple or single mother to continue the pregnancy OR end the pregnancy. The issue is "Should a child who was born handicapped due to a genetic defect that should have been detected by his mother's doctor, be allowed to sue for damages, claiming wrongful life, i.e., that he would have been better off not being born at all?" First, it seems to me that the child would not the be person to bring action if one were brought. At the time of the "offense," the child was a non-person with no rights, not even the right to be born if the mother chose otherwise. This is not a slap at the current abortion situation. It is a statement of fact, based upon the law of the land as interpreted by the Supreme Court of the land. Therefore, it would seem that since the child could not have acted on the knowledge of a genetic problem, the child has no standing to claim offense. Second, genetic testing is not without risk. Acquiring the sample prior to birth carries risks, as another poster on this list noted. Poor outcome from the testing, the doctor is in court. Some alternatives exist, such as some high resolution ultrasound scans, but they cannot reveal all defects. Nor are they perfect. The fetal heart is extremely tiny, especially in the first and second trimesters, which is when the freedom to terminate a pregnancy is greatest. Detecting holes in a very small, beating organ when what you are actually seeing is "sonic shadows" is exceedingly difficult. The same is true of other fetal organs. Given the imprecision of some of these alternative tests, imagine the headlines and the size of the damage award if a healthy child were aborted on the basis of an incorrect test result! Third, the word "should" in the question is a pivotal issue. "Should have been detected" according to whom? Is this according to widely accepted standards of care for similar circumstances, or is it the opinion of the suing attorney (who has a financial incentive to believe this is true)? Or "should" this have been detected because the mother or father want someone else to meet the cost of caring for a child that is not what they wanted? Or did the circumstance have no clear standard of what "should" have been done? Without a compelling understanding of the validity of the "should have been detected," the whole question is too nebulous to answer. Physicians are not psychic. They cannot divine the correct answer in every case. Society, as a whole, is not best served by rendering all physicians afraid to do any testing, make any recommendations, or perform ALL potential testing on the off chance of an unsuspected disorder. Clearly, on a strictly Utilitarianism basis, an occasional birth of a baby with undetected defects is far outweighed by a medical reality in which physicians perform the most appropriate tests - and no more - thus spreading the resources of health care most effectively, improving the lives of millions, instead of spending thousands upon thousands of limited health care dollars (lira, francs, pesos, etc.) to exhaust every last possible legal risk for each and every pregnancy. The current climate of litigation in the United States has already brought health care to its knees over just such unreasonable expectations and legal actions. Pregnant women in many areas of the country must travel vast distances to find a physician WILLING to provide prenatal care and deliver the baby, just because of the high risk of being sued for doing - or failing to do - "something" that someone else thinks they "should have done." Punish true negligence or malpractice or stupidity. However, unplanned outcomes occur even in the best of situations, with the best of care and the most reasoned decision making. If a physician makes a true, sincere, well-founded set of choices which are in keeping with the standard of care, and the patient survives ANYWAY, but doesn't like it, that is not malpractice. Punishing a physician in this situation produces the most harm to the most people by crippling the health care system. Such a decision, while perhaps emotionally and financially gratifying, cannot be viewed as ethical, in my opinion. No. A child as described in the question should not be allowed to sue for "wrongful life" in the absence of definitive, standards based neglect or malpractice."( Larry Conway)

Everyone of these viewpoints just from very different answers were different in there own ways. The first two viewpoints seemed to feel that if genetics were the cause of these situations, it shouldn't matter either way. Its no ones fault if a person is born with a disability. That abortion should never be an option, and there is no good excuse for aborting the child. The last viewpoint seem to have a little bit of an open mind on the issues at hand. Feeling that it is everyones own choice if they want to abort a baby or not. Basically sending the message that who are we to tell someone what they can and can not do. He was very precised and backed up his thoughts very well.

My own intake on it all is that, although me myself do not believe in abortion, especailly for the reason being that the child would be born with a disability. I do not see them as any less of a person. I feel that an innocent child should not be punished in any way shape or form. The one thing that got me thinking is that if they are blaming it on genetics for a person be born with a disability, the finger should not be pointed at the doctor. As for the future, I really don't know what the answer is for this one. I don't see how to prevent this sort of thing, it will always remain how it is now. Although the future is an interesting thing, you never know.