Tuesday, March 29, 2016
Case 36 IVF and a Postmenopausal Woman (by 31Mar)
Collectively, assess question 1 at the end of this case, then discuss each others' posts. Specifically:
A. The first 3 of you write about Kant, the next 2 assess from the point of view of Utilitarianism, etc. using the following theories: Kant, Act-Utilitarianism, Rule-Utilitarianism, Virtue, Caring, Principles of Bioethics, Ross’ Principles, Casuistry.
B. Respond to 1-2 posts of your classmates who approached the case using a different theory that what you used.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I have a feeling Kant wouldn't agree with this. Kant does say that all people shouldn't be treated as a means, but as an end. He also states that an act is permissible if it is possible for it to be permissible in all cases (universibility) and it applies to all peoples (categorical imperative. I argue this because I feel that, in situations like this, it's hard to tell what the true intentions of the post-menopausal individuals could be doing the in vitro pregnancy for. Maybe they're trying to work the system; they are retired and relaxing and probably wanna get tax benefits by having a dependent (I dunno...is that how taxing works during retirement?) and therefore,the women is using the child as a means. Her time has passed naturally and healthily, and she is forcing the conception. But, this may not be Emily's intent! The fact that the situation I gave COULD come about in other cases similar to Emily's, it breaks Kant's universibility rule AND his people shouldn't be means rule.
ReplyDeleteHowever! One COULD argue that Kant would permit this because Emily does simply want a child. And the child would literally be the end of try in vitro pregnancy of the post menopausal Emily.
It could be argued either way, but I have a gut feeling that Kant wouldn't be fully comfortable with it.
I agree with you because of your statement about the women using a child as a means to an end. But I was looking at it from the child's perspective. The child would use his parents as a means to his happiness. If they were to die, who would stand in that place now? The fact of the old age rubs me the wrong way because it sets the child up for an unfair advantage just to make the parents happy.
DeleteI am unsure on what Kant would say with this because he says that actions are right if they are not done to bring about good consequences, the good consequence in this case is a child. When talking about the other person involved, it seems as if they are being used as an end because all they are asking is for an egg donation and nothing else. I agree with Katrina that more information is needed to fully decide on how Kant would go about this situation
DeleteI definitely agree that the age of the parents is a very important factor in this case. Although the parents are healthy at this point, by the time the child turns 18 they would be 82 and 77 which are common ages of death in people. It must also be considered that the parents want a child so that someone will be around to take care of them as they age.
DeleteOf Kant's two arguments based on the Categorical Imperative, the one that would provide a more stable grounding for a point would be the universalizability. In any case, what we are aiming to achieve is health, safety, and happiness. IN this case we have an older soon to be retired couple who wants to have a child. Emily is post menopausal. On average menopause occurs when women 48-55 yrs old. Menopause involves a lot of hormonal and bodily changes. If Emily were to become pregnant through IVF, these natural bodily changes would endanger the baby significantly and herself even if she were to receive hormone injections. To put a child in danger like that would weigh heavier morally than if they were to not birth their own child. They could use a surrogate or adopt. In every IVF case, universally speaking, the doctor should not allow their patients to continue with IVF if they are knowingly endangering themselves or the child. It would be like continuing to give children the vaccines that have been linked to autism- it is immoral.
ReplyDeleteAnd I agree with Erick somewhat with the means argument; however, I don't think we are given enough information to properly use it.
I agree with this point of view. There is a reason menopause is brought on and that is because the body is no longer healthy enough to carry a fetus due to the natural wear and tear of aging. On top of that hormonal therapy also comes with its own risks and can cause damage to the body at which if she had to withdrawl from the hormonal therapy while pregnant it would most definitely cause harm to the fetus. Due to the risky nature of the situation and the potential harm that could ensue it would be considered immoral to allow this to carry out.
DeleteI agree with this point of view. There is a reason menopause is brought on and that is because the body is no longer healthy enough to carry a fetus due to the natural wear and tear of aging. On top of that hormonal therapy also comes with its own risks and can cause damage to the body at which if she had to withdrawl from the hormonal therapy while pregnant it would most definitely cause harm to the fetus. Due to the risky nature of the situation and the potential harm that could ensue it would be considered immoral to allow this to carry out.
DeleteI agree that there is danger to the mother and child if this IVF is used. From the Kantian point of view of doing no harm, this is imperative. It is morally wrong for Emily to risk her life when their are easier and safer alternatives. Also one might argue that it is morally beneficial to adopt as it helps out another human that needs it.
DeleteSide note: Katrina, there are no vaccines that have ever had links to autism. I got lots of literature on it from Dr. Barone's immunology class if you want to see it. Or just talk to Dr. Barone, she will let you know the facts real quick.
I agree that there is danger to the mother and child if this IVF is used. From the Kantian point of view of doing no harm, this is imperative. It is morally wrong for Emily to risk her life when their are easier and safer alternatives. Also one might argue that it is morally beneficial to adopt as it helps out another human that needs it.
DeleteSide note: Katrina, there are no vaccines that have ever had links to autism. I got lots of literature on it from Dr. Barone's immunology class if you want to see it. Or just talk to Dr. Barone, she will let you know the facts real quick.
Lane brings up a big point that I overlooked; menopause is nature's way of saying your time is up. I didn't realize that menopause was an evolutionary trait used to PROTECT offspring. In that case, I fully believe Kant wouldn't agree with this situation.
DeleteAlso, side note: just to add, Lane is correct. There isn't a single vaccine PERIOD linked to autism. In fact, the "scientist" who first claimed this was salty over business issues with pharmceutical firms (I believ, don't quote me on that tiny nuance). However, I do know for a fact that even HE, the SOURCE of this anti-vax, said that what he said about vaccines and autism was completel fabricated and false
Kant believes that actions are right if they are done purely from good will, not if they make us feel good and not simply if they bring about good consequences. Therefore I agree with Katrina and Eric that Kant wouldn't support this post menopausal woman, Emily, becoming pregnant from IVF. The couple wants to "feel good" through having a child in their retirement years. Like Katrina said, Emily could endanger this child as she herself undergoes hormonal and bodily changes. Kant wouldn't agree with this decision to possibly endanger a child just to satisfy an older couple's desire to have a kid. If they want to raise a child in their retirement years there are alternatives to IVF. They could adopt or use a surrogate rather than risk possible defects and even death from having their own.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you but I feel like the Emily and he husband want to be able to pass on their genes to a new generation. I feel like this is very important to them and with adoption they wouldn't be able to do that. If they are willing o have a child at their age, then I am sure they are fully aware of the consequences that their actions can make for both themselves and for the child. It's not like they are 16 and immature people, they have worked and lived almost their entire life and they have decided that this is something that they want so it should be their decision.
DeleteFrom an Act-Utilitarian perspective, what Emily L and her husband are doing could be construed as being morally acceptable. The act of conceiving a child for them to raise in their retirement is all about maximizing their happiness. As that is what Act-Utilitarianism is concerned with, it makes sense that their act is moral. However, Emily and her husband are, seemingly, ignoring a rather important question they have to ask themselves, namely, are they capable of raising a child properly? They don't seem to be taking into account that their physical prowess will only go down from this point onward, meaning their child will have to live a more restrained life based on the infirmity of the parents. So the two have to balance maximizing their own happiness with the possible unhappiness they may cause their own child.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you Keith. I think from a Utilitarian's perspective, the greatest pleasure results from the parents having this child even though it could endanger the child. It maximizes the greatest pleasure for the greatest number so it would be moral to a utilitarian. However, the parents need to understand the possible results from this and be willing to raise this child no matter how restrained a life they will have. Having this child may create the greatest pleasure now, but will they still be happy if their child is born with birth defects? Also they need to think about the unhappiness they could create for a child who has to live with these defects.
DeleteI agree with your application of Act-Utilitarianism. It would be morally permissible for Emily and her husband to have a child even in their late age in order to maximize their happiness; however, I am still not sure if this argument is the most effective since it doesn't really take into account the child (like Nicole said as far as birth defects go).
DeleteI agree. I think that the Act-Utilitarian would be fine with this process. Emily and her husband get a child, the child gets to be born and have life. The thing I do not really like about applying Utilitarianism to this case is the fact that you could always argue that the benefits for Emily and her husband outweigh most consequences. Emily could have a miscarriage, but you could argue that she would be happier to have had a miscarriage and at least tried than to not have tried at all. The same logic could be applied if they had a child with a birth defect.
DeleteFrom a Utilitarian's point of view, I feel that it would be morally acceptable for Emily and her husband to have a child at their age only because it it maximizing their happiness in the long run because they are getting the child that they want after working for so many years and now finally getting to retire and start a family. But on the other hand, like Keith was saying, is this going to be a good life for their child? Having parents who are older is completely different than having parents who are retired. I believe it could work either way for the family, that the child is happy with the life it has with two retired parents that may or may not have enough to give to the child, or the other way around. As a Utilitarians point of view, if the outcome is good and the child's life will be good and fair, which I do believe the parents can maximize their happiness along with the child, it is acceptable.
ReplyDeleteI see your point. Couldn’t utilitarianism also say that Emily shouldn’t have a baby, since it would minimize pain for the most people? Even though her and her husband are healthy, they still could get seriously injured. We see it in elderly people all the time. If one of them gets seriously injured, they won’t be able to give the baby all the attention, love and car he/she needs.
DeleteVery interesting twist; Utilitarinism can be applied to the parents, but, couldn't it Also be applicable to the child as well? Someone mentioned the parents' physical prowess; what if during childbirth, she died because of her older age and health complications? There's pain for the father, now, as well as the child. Not saying she WILL die but her chances are certainly increased.
DeleteThe chances of having a healthy normal child at that age is slim as well. It is morally acceptable for Emily and her husband to have a child at that age, but they do need to know the risks that it entails. I do believe that utilitarianism can be applied to the child in this case. The child will have a different lifestyle since its parents are retired, but I have seen it happen and they successfully raise a child.
DeleteFrom a Utilitarian point of view i feel like it would be something that the doctor should do. The doctor has to be able to treat everyone fairly in his practice and rant the wishes of his patients regardless of age. Utilitarian also states that everyone has a choice, that is the patient and the doctor , they both have a choice, but I feel like treating everyone equally trumps the decision of the doctor just because the patient is 59 years old. I believed that the parents would be able to have their child and allow for that child to grow up and have a normal life. I also feel like the child will have to deal with the death of their parents at a much younger age than some of their friends. This cause cause emotional problems in the child and cause them to act out and not behave like a moral citizen. This is where separating good vs. evil comes into play. Is the child going to be a good product? or is he/she going to act out and cause trouble? You really don't know this and that why i Feel like from a Utilitarian perspective Emily L. should be able to have a child during her retirement.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that no one knows how that child is going to act in the future, but with the right amount of parenting, he could turn out to be a great child. I'm glad you included some future consequences into the equation of deciding, this helps to see what good and bad can come from having a child at Emily's age. But like you said, there isn't enough bad "evidence" to say that the Utilitarian would disagree with her having a child.
DeleteI feel that the doctor has to have a firm stance on whether he will do IVF for Emily or not. Is the doctor willing to risk his reputation if things go south? The procedure for IVF must be expensive and I would hate to put all this money into trying to get pregnant and it not be successful. The risks and benefits need to be discussed in order to continue with the process.
DeleteFrom a Rule-Utilitarian point of view, I feel that it would not be alright for the two parents to have a baby at the ages of 59 ab=nd 64. Even though the couple would be happier in the long run, think about the child who they are going to have. When this child turns ten, the youngest parent will be 70 years old. I know several adults 70 and older in good health, but will they be able to handle a child at one of the peaks of life? They would have to be running this child around to any sports or school outings that they need to be at. Also they will have to make time for themselves to rest being they are a little bit older. I think the greatest balance of good is in the child's favor simply because they have a longer projected life than the parents. I do not think it would be fair to the child to risk losing their parents before they even turn 18. What happens when the child loses both parents to old age before they even finish high school? This is what is needed to be thought about by the parents. This is why from this perspective I believe this is wrong.
ReplyDeleteFrom Aristotle's virtue ethics, the plan made by Emily and her husband seems to be morally sound. They appear to be using several virtues in their decision making. By having a child they are using and further developing virtues such as love, patience, and kindness. By them being retired, they will have more time to spend with their child, a sort of charity of their time to another human. Furthermore, Emily and her husband are helping to create another virtuous person by using their virtues. There is the possibility that given their age they have a better understanding of the virtues they will pass down compared to traditionally aged parents. Emily and her husband will have the chance to ingrain virtues into their child. They will be able to be the role models of this child and help him/her develop as a virtuous person and to know how to properly use the virtues.
ReplyDeleteBrycen, your defense from a virtue ethics point of view seems sound. I agree that since they are retired they will have more time to dedicate to raising their child and that given their advanced age they might have a better understanding of the virtues they wish to pass on. That is something that I had not even considered- good point.
DeleteI find your argument sound and agreeable. The only question I would need answered from the prospective parents is if they want the child out of altruistic or selfish reasons.
DeleteFrom Aristotle's virtue ethics, the plan made by Emily and her husband seems to be morally sound. They appear to be using several virtues in their decision making. By having a child they are using and further developing virtues such as love, patience, and kindness. By them being retired, they will have more time to spend with their child, a sort of charity of their time to another human. Furthermore, Emily and her husband are helping to create another virtuous person by using their virtues. There is the possibility that given their age they have a better understanding of the virtues they will pass down compared to traditionally aged parents. Emily and her husband will have the chance to ingrain virtues into their child. They will be able to be the role models of this child and help him/her develop as a virtuous person and to know how to properly use the virtues.
ReplyDeleteFrom a virtue ethics perspective, the plan that they have come up with seems morally sound. Emily seems to understand that if her egg was used, then there could be a greater chance of complications with having a baby. Her and her husband are choosing to make the safest decision for their child, while still maintaining a biological connection. A agree with Brycen that with then retiring, they will have more time for the child. Also if they have a child, they can teach them how to be virtuous and then they can teach their children and so on. If more people taught their children to be virtuous, then they can pass it along and try to make the world a better place. With them being older, they understand the social structure that is needed to be a virtuous person, they have more experience in the world, which mean that they possibly have more knowledge on what is right and wrong.
ReplyDeleteThis is an interesting point that since they will be retired they will be able to spend more time with the child. They will also be financially stable so they can provide well for the child.
Delete1 and 2. Using Biomedical Ethics, I would argue that Emily L’s plan is not morally sound. Her plan is problematic due to her and her husband’s age. Their age makes them senior citizens. It is not fair for the child, who will have a bunch of energy, to have two elderly parents with decreasing energy. It can also cause harm to the child, if one of the parents suddenly get injured.
ReplyDelete3. I don’t think the clinic should support Emily’s attempt, since the doctor doesn’t feel comfortable. Dr. T. should explain why she doesn’t feel great about plan and a least recommend to another doctor.
Theoretically, if the child goes off to college at 18 years old, at least one of the parents should still be alive. They will probably have the children at 60 (her) and 64 (him). The average life expectancy is around 81 for women and 76 for men. So, theoretically Emily should be alive by standards and the husband may or may not. It says they are also in good health an there should be no reason why they could not handle a child with energy. I do not think that the child will be harmed if one of the parents gets hurt. If one of them dies, the other one will be around and MANY children are raised with only one parent in today's society.
DeletePrinciples of Biomedical Ethics
ReplyDeleteThis view focuses on the four main principles which are respect for autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice.
1. I believe that the principles of biomedical ethics would require Dr. T to perform the procedure. By respecting patient's autonomy and beneficence, this should be done. The risks of pregnancy do go up with age, but the age should not have anything to do with the child's care after they are born. These patient's are retiring and will have all of the time to watch and take care of the child. Also, you will be giving a gift to the parents. The aged parents will be getting social security and can physically take care of the child, so the justice of the situation is not taken to far in to the situation. The only act of non-maleficence would be to the fetus's health in an aged body. This is however always a risk when having children and also the doctor says that this has worked out before. So, I believe that the benefits of biomedical ethics outweigh non-maleficence.
2. I believe that if the doctor has a problem with Emily's age he can refer her to another doctor but I believe that the clinic should support an aged woman's attempt at being a mother.
Kant would say that the autonomy of the parents should be respected so the clinic should support their attempt to become parents. Utilitarianism would only be opposed to the situation only because the couple's age is a consideration when health could have an impact on someones life. It is not moral for a child to have parents with health issues growing up. The case says that the couple is healthy but that is more likely to change with old age.
ReplyDeleteI like how you said they would be respected using Kants rule but more importantly you said their attempt to become parents is telling me that it seems that the confidence of them becoming parents to you is slim. Which I agree but at the same time you should respect their decision but also inform them of the risk.
DeleteLooking at this case in an utilitarian point of view this case will be opposed. This is because of the age of the parents. One parent will be 59 and the other 64. This might make the parents happy to have this child but in the long run for the child I am not so sure if it will be beneficial especially trying to raise a kid at there age. All things are possible but this would be a risk because of there age and how some older peoples health tend to decline and recovery takes longer.
ReplyDeleteI agree. I believe that from the Utilitarian point of view they would oppose this. They would oppose it because the parents decision would harm the child's life in the long term. The parents may not both live to adulthood of their child causing the child's life to possibly be uprooted into a foster care system. This could harm the child mentally and physically.
DeleteIn this circumstance, I believe Kant would allow Emily and her husband to use IVF in order to become pregnant because we are autonomous people. We also seek avoid pain and but like pleasure. If Emily and her husband have a child they are seeking their pleasure in life to have a child.
ReplyDeleteI disagree. I think that Kant would say that they are looking into their own interests and using the child as a means to achieve their end of raising a child when it is convenient for them. While autonomy is important, I do not think it is enough for the couple to have a child.
DeleteThrough the theory of casuistry it depends on what other cases like this shows. If there are more cases that show that the baby that is born way after menopause are born with a deficit, or if it also shows that the parents die before the child becomes 18 then it would be morally wrong. They will be purposefully be trying to have a baby when they may not be around till adulthood of the child. Also if they know that a child has a greater risk of being born with a deficit it is not fair to put a child through that. The parents have a morally responsibility to examine all situations that they may be inflicting on the child.
ReplyDelete