Some remarks on clinics and baby's. As some respondents, Kenneth, Marty and
Peter., noted it really is a hard moral question. There is no cut and dried
easy answer here.
Is there some moral yardstick, or the best thing to do. for who? That's the
question I am interested in.
I think more questions arise If we take a closer look at all the arguments
mentioned.
Moral concerns sound like how to cut the cake. Rather than how to make
enough cake.
- I have to agree. If we didn't have to choose, maybe there wouldn't be any
moral problems at all. But would that serve morality? I'm not so sure.
In this case the woman wants something nature doesn't give her, so she tries
the artificial way. If she had given birth to the child in the natural way,
knowing of the risks, the clinic wouldn't have had any problems but was it a
moral thing to do?
In this case there are different rights conflicting with eachother. There
are three different points of view and maybe differents rights.
1) The right of a person to conceive a child. (a right which nature has
deprived her off)
vs
Conflicts
2) with the right of the unborn
vs
3) The rights/obligations of the clinic
Maximizing the quality of life of the unborn child. At what point is the
potential for the quality of life to be so impaired that the child should
not be born at all.
- Well, it seems a bit surprising that in the eyes of clinic, a blind
life has less quality. The woman herself thinks otherwhise. She obviously
doesn't consider it a problem by wanting the child. Maybe she has a point
because she herself is blind.
Being blind is still better than not being born at all.
- In the case of dynamic Quality? life is better than no life at all? We
can't ask the child yet..
The blind woman has really not a lot to choose from. The doctors had to
discriminate because of the high risk for the baby getting blind itself.
(choice instead of the mother, who herself has decided to take that risk)The
clinic has the right to screen potential clients. So the obligation to
decide who is accepted and who is not.
- Does the clinic have the right? You can say that the woman has other
opportunities. For example Getting some sperm of an unknow man who doesn't
want to play the father role. But in my opinion this is getting rid of the
problem. I think the clinic has full responsibility when someone is asking
for help. But, should the clinic help in all cases? You can be sure there
will be discrimination on different grounds. What grounds can be legitimate
/ moral and what grounds are not?
They protect society against a certain burder. Society will some day pay up
to support the child. Solidarity has its borders, personal responsibility
is even more important than solidarity.
- hmmmmm. Society's choice. Well this remarks turns it into an
economical aspect. We ask society to pay for the care. When we ask society
in other cases there will be a lot of problems. Building roads, which are
only in the interest of 10 % of the population, would probably not be
approved by the other 90% that doesn't benefit but would have to pay.
- If the woman had given birth to the child in the natural way, and
the child turned out to be blind, society would have to pay. Is it fair to
ask the question now that it has become a conscious choice?
-
PS
Kenneth, I know of Filosofie Magazine but did not read the article you
mentioned. I'm very interested.
The CASE
> Clinics and baby's
>
> Maybe something interesting for the MOQ, a case about morals, values and
> ethics.
> (taken from real live)
> Maybe the moq-members could help clearing things up
>
> The case
> Picture a fertility clinic and the following case:
>
> A lesbian woman, blind, has a girlfriend with whome she's been living
quite
> happily for some years. Together they take care for two children, the
> children were given birth to by her girlfriend.
>
> The woman wants to give birth to an (biologically) own child, but her
> blindness is caused by a hereditary disease which runs through her family.
> There's a 42% chance that she will give birth to a child who will also
carry
> this disease and become blind when he/she is growing up.
>
> The doctors of the clinic refuse to help this woman with donor
insemination
> because of the high risk of blindness for the child.
> She is very angry and is sueing the clinic for discrimination of disabled
> people.
>
> Some questions regarding the case:
> Do the doctors discriminate? And if so, is it moral to do so?
> What's the moral in this case or simply the best thing to do?
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:55 BST