There are no fast ethical concerns with permitting a postmenopausal female to conceive – at encounter value, you’re just giving fertility to a sterile man or woman. Not only is there nothing wrong with that – that would be a miraculous breakthrough for several individuals who want to have children, but physically can’t.
Where ethical concerns may come up would arrive from specific limitations with the technology, not from the imagined experiment of a menopausal females getting in a position to be fertile. For instance, it really is nicely identified that females who are very shut to menopause who have youngsters introduce severely inflated genetic chance to those young children. So if the know-how permitted postmenopausal women to conceive, but youngsters conceived by that technologies had been topic to immense threat of genetic disease, then that would be an ethical problem. Or, for instance, if the know-how relied upon the introduction of uncommon hormones, and these hormones had detrimental wellness effects about time on the woman taking them, then that could be an ethical issue – presenting desperate women with the guarantee of fertility, but at the expense of their health.
Like any biological technologies, side-results and imperfections could easily consequence in ethical concerns, but there’s certainly nothing at all ethically incorrect with giving fertility to a individual who would otherwise be sterile.
So you're saying women should have the right? I listened to an interview about this and wrote my ideas down a while ago. Hopefully they can somewhat help you out Beau.
This interview discusses how a 60-year-old Canadian woman, Ranjit Hayer, went to India to get in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment after she was denied access to it in Canada. The main predicament encircling this radio discussion is that with technology, we can do so much, but should we do what may seem unmeritable in nature’s perspective just because we can do it? In other words, is it ethi-cally acceptable to help a 60-year-old woman get pregnant if it is possible?
To answer this question, Eike Kluge provides the listeners with several intriguing arguments. To start, he mentions the importance of a physician-patient relation, a practice that is central to medicine and is essential for the delivery of proper health care. Generally, it is this relationship that upholds the patients’ dignity, safety, and their privacy. Thus, is it ethical for a doctor to put the patient at risk? In order for a doctor to answer this question, he/she must have a firm understanding of the situation and restrain from using anecdotal evidence that may influence the woman’s choice. Eike mentions that 50-80% of post menopausal pregnancies result in a c-section and he remarks that there is a definite guarantee the baby will be born prematurely. By the tone of his voice, it seemed quite clear that Eike opposed Ranjit’s choice and he explicitly states that technology should be used to solve problems, not to create problems. In fact, he even denounces this particular situation as a possible vanity issue; in other words, Ranjit is acting selfishly according to her individual will – egoism. I tend to agree with this notion because she is not taking into consideration that her decision to give birth may endanger the babies’ survival if they are born prematurely. Eike mentions that if the function of health care is to deal with problems that arise in the normal cause of events, then the cut off should be post-menopausal. Thus, he believes that everyone should be entitled to positive rights; however, since menopause is not a medical disease, it should not apply – Deontology. Moreover, at the age of 60, the ability to make decisions, known as executive function, and attention begin to decline. Consequently, a doctor must keep these points in mind when consulting with women who desire IVF treatment during their post-menopausal years.
Michael Gordon maintained the idea that since Canada is multivariate society, age alone should not be the overriding factor when considering this situation. He also supports the belief that women should act in their own self-interest – ethical egoism. Elaborating on Eike’s position, Carolyn McLeod mentions that there is a profound risk to the mother, and also to the child, the likelihood that the child will be deprived of a relationship with his/her parents before the child is independent. This can be true on many different levels. For instance, if the parents were to fall ill anytime before the baby becomes an adult, who will the child depend on? Likewise, if the parents were to fall ill and die, the child would become an orphan. Hence, they are almost guaranteed to lose their mother or father by the time they become adults. This couple must understand that they may not live to see the day their child graduates from high school, gets married, or has children? I feel that this is the reason why humans are designed to have biological clocks; menopause should be the cut-off date, whether it happens at 40, 50, or 60 years of age. I am sure this woman contemplated all these circumstances, but as Eike mentioned, it was likely more a vanity issue than anything. Recall that Ranjit tried for decades to have a child, enduring multiple miscarriages and surgery before she decided to seek fertility treatment. It was as if she was trying to prove something to herself or her family without thinking of the consequences – egotistic. This woman’s eccentric behaviour, in addition to her husband’s unwise support, will put an increased strain on the health care system and cost Canadian taxpayers thousands of dollars. In the grand scheme of things, I think that India offered this woman IVF, as a form of propaganda; that is, to show the world that they are medically capable to perform even the most difficult of tasks in order to attract new customers around the world.
Quick Reply
