Purdy’s argument follows a simple Modus Ponens style of an argument. Purdy’s argument starts off by stating her first premise, which is that if someone is subjected to going through serious suffering without being able to consent that it is morally wrong. Her second premise is that some serious diseases have a high risk of being transmitted where these diseases then cause serious suffering. Purdy’s third premise states that if these serious diseases have a high risk of being transmitted, and end up causing serious suffering, then it is morally wrong to reproduce when people know there is a risk of transmission. It would then be their moral obligation to get genetically tested before trying to conceive. Purdy would consider trying to conceive …show more content…
I believe that her first two premises would be hard to argue against and would say they are true. You would not want to see people suffer. It is also true that some diseases are at a higher risk of being transmitted. For example, a disease that is caused by a dominant gene is more likely to be transmitted than a disease that is caused by a recessive gene. Her third premise, which is talking about serious diseases that are likely to be transmitted and lead to serious suffering cause the people who have the risk of transmitting to morally not reproduce. I would find this one the most reasonable to argue against because Purdy does not specify what a serious disease is and what serious suffering means. Purdy states in her article that “there are cases ranging from low risk of mild disease or disability to high risk of serious disease or disability” (Purdy 106). So, how do we identify a serious disease is from a mild disease if she cannot even specify it. Does serious suffering mean that your life is over and cut short or that you are just different from everyone else? A serious disease could range from being deaf to Huntington’s Disease. Huntington’s Disease, “is an autosomal dominant disease, meaning it is caused by a single defective gene located on a non-sex chromosome” (Purdy 107). Huntington’s Disease is “passed from one generation to the next via affected individuals. Each child of such an affected person has a 50 percent risk of inheriting the gene and thus of eventually developing the disease” (Purdy 107). Huntington’s Disease is a lot more severe than someone being born deaf. Being deaf is a problem, but will not lead to your life being cut short like Huntington’s Disease. So, if she would not consider deafness a serious disease then would her third premise hold true? There is no way we can tell what she means. Purdy is too vague on what could be considered serious or
The author Tex G. Hall is explaining Native American team sports mascots are racist. He is testifying for many other people as well. He makes a very sensible are you and uses the motion and great facts facts. The way his argument is structured is very engaging. He first off thanks many people for bringing this controversy to everyone 's attention.
“Start again next month.” What if this was the only chance she would ever be able to have a child and his solution was to just try again the next
I agree. In some cases, knowing that you have a mutation and will be affected with the disease could be very emotional for an individual. One never knows how they will respond to the result and pretesting counseling may not fully prepare the individual for the result. One question that has been raised is should genetic counseling be allowed for diseases that are not treatable? It is thought that if an individual knows they will develop a condition that has no treatment it could cause psychological harm, stigmatization, and possible discrimination.
She points out facts about her own insurance where she has “a condition- say high blood pressure or diabetes- serious enough to be entered into your medical record.” (par. 7) where she lost her job and her health insurance. She tried to get new insurance “but no one want[ed] [her] because [she] now [has] a ‘pre-existing condition,’” (par. 7).
Thus, healthcare professionals should be aware that Annette may have trouble hearing or processing information. It is vital to speak clearly and ensure Annette can comprehend the conversation-- as health care professionals should do with every
The story of Lynn Spradley’s journey is for every parent who believes that their child isn’t normal. I learned a great deal about what it truly means to be deaf from this book. Reading this story brought out much emotion as the story progressed. Lynn’s parents Tom and Louise reaction of every parent’s worst thought when having a child. Everyone believes that there child is going to be healthy and fully functioning ready to be a part of the world.
Her mother didn’t become deaf until she was 13 months old. She had spinal meningitis and because of this she went deaf. She was getting shots for the meningitis, but after the fifth they decided to stop the shots and after they stop the relapse was what caused the deafness. It was very hard for Doris Jean because she was already starting to say some words. After the second fever, she went deaf and wouldn’t talk for years and when she did start talking, no one understood her.
Sparrow explains, “ According to the testimony of many individuals who are members of Deaf culture, it is perfectly possible to lead a happy and productive life without hearing or spoken language” (137). The deaf culture believes that deaf people do not need cochlear implants to fit into society. They believe that deafness is not a disease and does not need to be fixed. With a cochlear implant, it is not used to fix the deafness, it is used to help with the person to give them more of a normal life and to help them have the ability to fit into society
The topic of cochlear implants is causing quite the argument between the deaf and medical community. The core of the disagreement centers around whether or not cochlear implantation should continue to be considered as an option for hearing impaired individuals to improve auditory ability.. According to the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association a cochlear implant is “a device that provides direct electrical stimulation to the auditory (hearing) nerve in the inner ear.” Proponents of cochlear implants claim that hose who are born with or later experience a problem with the sensory nerve of the inner ear have the opportunity to gain the ability to hearHowever, many are now arguing that this device is not as useful or healthy for the human ear as it has been said to be. Those who oppose cochlear implantation, namely the deaf community, view it as a threat to the deaf community and its culture.
While pointing out that it is much easier to ignore an appeal for money to help those you’ll never meet than to consign a child to death, Singer uses his utilitarian philosophy to deflect the argument, stating that “if the upshot of the American’s failure to donate the money is that one more kid dies… then it is, in some sense, just as bad as selling the kid to the organ peddlers.” This argument, however, can only be made while using false dilemmas. Singer also addresses a large criticism of his work, that one can’t decide moral issues by taking opinion polls. The argument to this reiterates how the audience would feel being in these situations. This argument is poor as it does not address how the entire article is based on how everyone feels about this particular subject.
It is important before breaking down Hursthouses argument, to examine the basis in which she grounds her claims. We can see through her investigation her examination of whether having an abortion is something a virtuous person would do. A virtuous person therefore, is someone who exercises virtue with virtue being defined by Hursthouse as “a character trait a human
She argues that with this situation you are aware of risk of becoming pregnant, and with this risk you are accepting the “invitation” of having a fetus to use your body. She thinks you have responsibility for the fetus even though it was not your intention to become pregnant. Going back to her main argument, this would be violating the right to life, as depriving a fetus of its right to life when it has permission to use your body would be unjust killing. I do think that voluntary sex entails giving permission to a fetus to use the woman’s body. I agree with Thomas that even though you may give yourself as much protection as possible during consensual sex, if the sperm enters and causes a pregnancy, you were still completely aware of this consequence.
Editing of the human genome in the past has been only a sight seen in dystopia works such as Brave New World. Now, genetic enhancement is a prevalent today and people are beginning to realize the issues that can arise from creating these designer babies. Gene editing can be helpful to eradicate life changing disabilities. Yet, the term disability does not correctly label these differently abled people, as the idea of what is considered disabled has changed overtime. To fully understand the consequences and implications of genetic selection and enhancement of human embryos, society must mature and declare lines of what is and is not ethically moral.
Designer babies, what are they exactly? Well, designer babies are human embryos that have been genetically modified, usually following guidelines set by the parent or scientist, to produce desirable traits. This is done using various methods, such as germline engineering or Preimplantation genetic diagnosis and is usually implanted using in vitro fertilization. Essentially, a designer baby is a baby made in a lab using an egg and sperm and then genetically modified based on what the parent wants. The embryo is then implanted into the uterus to grow as a normal baby.
Is it morally permissible for a deaf couple to select for a deaf child? Would it be acceptable if the preimplantation genetic diagnosis provides the opportunity and hearing impaired parents choose to have a child with hearing disability? Some people draw parallels with intentionally harming a baby, e.g. depriving the child of his/her hearing sense . Thus, they say, it is unethical. Some people argue that by choosing the child with disability it harms the society .