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?
>
