1. Rachels article, talks about an incident where a baby has an intestinal blockage and needs surgery to live or the parents may choose to let the baby die. In this incident, the parents choose to let the baby die rather than try to save the child. Rachels believes that it is morally wrong of the parents to not try to save their child through surgical methods and just focus on the Down syndrome. The parents believe that since the child will suffer in life, as will they, then why let the child live. Rachels believes this is morally unethical. In addition, Rachels thinks it is especially wrong to let the baby die slowly because it is cruel and heartbreaking for the family to watch their child suffer. Whereas, a simple lethal injection can
…show more content…
Robertson’s article discusses the use of PGD for non-medical uses. One non-medical use he goes over is for perfect-pitch selection and how it satisfies the conditions of a permissible action. Two conditions/ questions we should ask ourselves regarding perfect-pitch selection being permissible is that if the parents have the best intentions. For instance, are the parents going to focus on the child’s musical talent and not let the child have a life outside of music? Yet, Robertson believes that PGD for perfect pitch does fulfill this condition. He believes parents have a right to influence or show their children all aspects of life. Another, point that Robertson makes is that using PGD for perfect-pitch could lead to the use of PGD for other traits like height, intelligence, etc. Parents would be more focused on a child’s characteristics than whom their child will be. Yet, Robertson argues PGD satisfies this condition because it is not right to put an end to something valuable, like perfect pitch selection just because a theoretical threat will eventually be used for other characteristics. Finding other characteristics are difficult because they are on several different genes. However, when discussing another type of non-medical use for PGD known as gender selection fails the conditions that perfect pitch passes. Robertson believes the parents for gender selection do not have the best intentions. Having this type of selection would make it easier for people to
Robertson’s article discusses the use of PGD for non-medical uses. One non-medical use he goes over is for perfect-pitch selection and how it satisfies the conditions of a permissible action. Two conditions/ questions we should ask ourselves regarding perfect-pitch selection being permissible is that if the parents have the best intentions. For instance, are the parents going to focus on the child’s musical talent and not let the child have a life outside of music? Yet, Robertson believes that PGD for perfect pitch does fulfill this condition. He believes parents have a right to influence or show their children all aspects of life. Another, point that Robertson makes is that using PGD for perfect-pitch could lead to the use of PGD for other traits like height, intelligence, etc. Parents would be more focused on a child’s characteristics than whom their child will be. Yet, Robertson argues PGD satisfies this condition because it is not right to put an end to something valuable, like perfect pitch selection just because a theoretical threat will eventually be used for other characteristics. Finding other characteristics are difficult because they are on several different genes. However, when discussing another type of non-medical use for PGD known as gender selection fails the conditions that perfect pitch passes. Robertson believes the parents for gender selection do not have the best intentions. Having this type of selection would make it easier for people to