Mr. and Mrs. Anderson are a very active couple in their mid-thirties. Mr. Anderson is a carpenter and enjoys building wood furniture by hand for designers, and Mrs. Anderson is a field hockey player coach at a local college as well as a player. Both Mr. and Mrs. Anderson want to have their own child, but have not had any luck over the course of a year. They decided it was best to talk to a reproductive endocrinologist, and after months of testing, they couple still had no luck. The couple’s reproductive endocrinologist, Dr. Wells, suggested to the Anderson’s to try in vitro fertilization in order to have a baby. Anxious to begin the in vitro fertilization process, the Anderson’s also began to look into preimplantation genetic testing because
…show more content…
Dr. Wells had concerns about removing embryos with mutations that could possibly lead to minor disabilities. The couples concern for the health of their child and their preventative decision may actually lead to disabling their child. Yet, the violation of this moral rule is only a possibility, Dr. Wells could remove the embryos and the baby come out perfectly healthy. Although, if the baby did end up being born with disabling defects, the Anderson’s as well as Dr. Wells would be violating moral principles. This would be completely unjustified and leave the Andersons with the extra responsibilities of caring for a disabled child. Also, Dr. Wells holds responsibility in the outcome of the child since he knew of the possible negative outcome, if the baby is born with defects, Wells could be considered to be in malpractice. Although, it is his job to provide his patients with all information of treatment options, it is also his responsibility to inform them of the possible consequences. If Dr. Wells properly informs the Andersons of their options and the possible negative outcomes, then it takes some responsibility of the results off of him. In order to prevent Dr. Wells being in malpractice he should, as I said before, provide the Andersons with full information as well as consequences, and I think he would also be justified in telling them his personal opinion to help the Andersons make a decision they won’t later
Dr. Wells had concerns about removing embryos with mutations that could possibly lead to minor disabilities. The couples concern for the health of their child and their preventative decision may actually lead to disabling their child. Yet, the violation of this moral rule is only a possibility, Dr. Wells could remove the embryos and the baby come out perfectly healthy. Although, if the baby did end up being born with disabling defects, the Anderson’s as well as Dr. Wells would be violating moral principles. This would be completely unjustified and leave the Andersons with the extra responsibilities of caring for a disabled child. Also, Dr. Wells holds responsibility in the outcome of the child since he knew of the possible negative outcome, if the baby is born with defects, Wells could be considered to be in malpractice. Although, it is his job to provide his patients with all information of treatment options, it is also his responsibility to inform them of the possible consequences. If Dr. Wells properly informs the Andersons of their options and the possible negative outcomes, then it takes some responsibility of the results off of him. In order to prevent Dr. Wells being in malpractice he should, as I said before, provide the Andersons with full information as well as consequences, and I think he would also be justified in telling them his personal opinion to help the Andersons make a decision they won’t later