Should It Be Publicly Funded? Essay

A Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD) is a test that “allows future parents to detect genetic defects that cause inherited disease in human embryos before they are implanted.” One of the most ethical questions that one might ask before considering the PGD is whether the benefits of genetic knowledge outweigh harmful effects that occur to the embryo? Is it really worth manipulating embryos genes in order to achieve the desire of the parents? Often times we have to take into considerations the risk and benefits of each situation. I believe that the PGD test should be only be done to detect genetic defects, but it should not be used to manipulate genes in order to make what to them is a “perfect” child. As stated in our text, “ In the united Kingdom alteration of an embryos genes, even for gene therapy or cloning embryos is illegal.” By manipulating genes its like going against Gods wishes. In the eyes of God every person that comes into this world is equally seen as a human being because they are all created in “ the image of God.” In this case the parents should not be allowed to manipulate the genes of their unborn child just to accommodate to their

PGD is performed with IVF and followed by genetic screening for mutant gene. IVF stage, eggs are collected and fertilized by sperm in the laboratory to produce Zygotes. Then, these Zygotes carry on to growing in the laboratory for 3 days until reached eight cells stage. Biopsy of embryo is performed and extracted blastomere from each 6-8 cell stage embryo. Then, cell undergoes genetic screening for mutant gene. Un-carrier and unaffected embryos are transferred into mother’s uterus with confident no CF mutant gene for ensuring a quality of life for baby (Destouni, 2016).

PGD is a reproductive technology used with IVF, where genetic or chromosomal disorders in early embryos before implantation and pregnancy are screened. Disease-inherited embryos are

In America alone there are 6.1 million couples coping with infertility (ASRM). In vitro fertilization (IVF) is one of the many assisted reproductive technologies used to help infertile couples achieve pregnancy. Since IVF is costly (the average cost is $12, 400. for one cycle), time consuming and a very emotional situation, many couples have a limited amount of opportunities to commit to the procedure and every step should be taken to maximize the chances of a successful healthy pregnancy. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis, or PGD, is a valuable tool for infertility treatment technology and can facilitate in successful IVF cycles.

Hemp has many ways it can put oxygen back into the air. One of the best ways it can give us cleaner air, other than through the automotive industry, is by replacing wood made paper with paper made from hemp. According to George Antonio from Drexel University, “until the 1880’s between 75% and 90% of paper was made with hemp fiber.” Many major documents such as the first draft of the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, and even Benjamin Franklin’s newspapers were made from hemp paper. They utilized hemp for many reasons, and one of those was to save us from deforestation, which is becoming a big problem for endangered species and the state of our air. Hemp takes 90-120 days to mature while trees take 20-80 years. Since hemp was banned in 1937, 70% of America’s natural forests have been destroyed, and the demand for paper is only growing and is expected to double in the next 20-30 years.

New technological advances and scientific methods continue to change the course of nature. One of the current controversial advances in science and technology is the use of genetically modified embryos in which the study exceeds stem cell research. Scientists have begun planning for research involving human embryos in the genetic modification field. Many technological developments are responsible for improving our living standards and even saving lives, but often such accomplishments have troubling cultural and moral ramifications (Reagan, 2015). We are already beyond the days in which virtually the only procreative option was for a man and a woman to conceive the old-fashioned way (Reagan, 2015). Genetic modification of human embryos can be perceived as a positive evolution in the medical process yet it is surrounded by controversy due to ethical processes. Because this form of genetic modification could affect later born children and their offspring, the protection of human subjects should be a priority in decisions about whether to proceed with such research (Dresser, 2004). The term Human Genetic Engineering was originally made public in 1970. During this time there were several methods biologists began to devise in order to better identify or isolate clone genes for manipulation in several species or mutating them in humans.

According to “Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis: Ethical or not?” Janet Malek, a bioethicist at the Brody School of Medicine at East Carolina University, states in quote “... people who carry a gene like GSS have a moral duty to use preimplantation diagnosis -- if they can afford it -- to spare the next generation.” end quote. Going by what she says and the high price of about $20,000, which means if you aren't extremely wealthy you won’t be able to afford this, so most of the population wouldn’t be able to afford this service. Which means it is only accessible to a select few, therefore making it less effective. Another and the final problem with this system is brought to light by David Wasserman, a ethicist at Yeshiva University and consultant, said in quote “there is no obligation to use it for diseases that do not start until adulthood. Eliminating embryos with such genes is essentially saying someone like Ms. Kalinsky should never have been born.” end quote. As true and controversial as Wasserman stated he speaks the truth. Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis should be reserved for either heavily crippling or life threatening diseases. Reasoning is if an adult contracts a disease such as GSS and then does have money to pay for a Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis procidure then should be allowed to get the operation, but for people who want to ensure the sex of their kid should find something else to spend their money

October 2001 - Fertility experts announce they will begin to offer PGD for use in sex selection to clients

PGD has received huge attention in recent years because of its ability to ward off approximately 50 percent likelihood of transferring some genetic abnormalities through the opportunity for potential parents to select in vitro only healthy embryos for implantation (Bumgarner, 2007, p.1294). However, the use of this technique is associated with hefty costs, which is a major disadvantage.

Should gender selection be legal in Australia? PGD (Pre-implantation genetic diagnosis) is illegal in Australia unless it is used to screen out hereditary disorders or a medical reason, however it is possible. Australian families travel overseas to countries such as USA, Asia and Thailand to go through the expensive process of choosing the gender of their baby (Cornwill, 2015). However many people disagree with this process and believe that you should not be able to choose the gender of your baby.

In the United States, an estimated 2.3 million couples are considered infertile [Wekesser, 1996]. This creates a large need for infertility specialists and clinics specializing in fertility treatments. With the quickly advancing field of rep roductive services and the quest for creating better, healthier babies, a new service called Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD) is being offered in conjunction with In vitro fertilization.

PGD is known as pre-implantation genetic diagnosing. I do not think it is ethical to design and conceive a child that meets specific genetic requirements. I do not feel that this is an ethical reason to conceive a child. Rather, I believe all children should be seen as blessings or gifts, not sacrificial genetic progeny.

The U.S. citizenry has expressed divergent views in the past on how public schools should be funded. In most cases, states primarily raise funds to support public schools through property and/or sales taxation. The extent to which respective states rely on either of these forms of taxation differs from state to state, with some relying on one or both methods of taxation. Reliance on either sales or property taxes as a primary source of funding presents related challenges to state governments since both tax forms bear significant shortcomings. This paper specifically argues that states such as Georgia, which have property tax as the primary source of funding, should not shift to the sales tax option. However, in addition to the current system of property taxes, these states should consider a hybrid plan using both property and sales taxes for better education funding.

Sadly medical research has been politicized. Perhaps I have my rose colored glasses on when I muse about both major political parties. I wonder why they cannot look at the issue itself and debate the value of allowing destined for disposal left over embryos to go down the drain. It is okay that in vitro fertilization produces excess embryos but not okay to use only what is destined to be disposed of for research. My apologies if I sound like a broken record. It is just that what I wonder about in this matter has never really been answered for the PD community.

Near a great forest there lived a poor woodcutter and his wife, and his two children; the boy's name was Hansel and the girl's Grethel. They had very little to bite or to sup, and once, when there was great dearth in the land, the man could not even gain the daily bread. As he lay in bed one night thinking of this, and turning and tossing, he sighed heavily, and said to his wife, "What will become of us? we cannot even feed our children; there is nothing left for ourselves."