In the past couple days, a couple of things have caused me to question the true value of scientific information. As a future biochemist, this has worried me a bit. To start things off, my genetics class began discussing genetic mutations. In the midst of all of the geneticist lingo like "trisomy," "transposons," and "tautomeric shifts" I found common phrases as well. It was these phrases, such as "muscular dystrophy," "Werner syndrome," and "Down syndrome" that began to strike me. When speaking of these diseases in class, it was as if they were scientific experiments in themselves; they were sample cases to explain the effects of what we were studying. However, I began to realize that these phrases did not only signify a certain genetic disorder. Instead, they were representative of a group of people. These people, just like you or me, have hopes, dreams, and goals. They were not simply a science experiment, but an entire person loved and created uniquely by God with a specific purpose on this Earth.
It was this realization caused me to think about how scientific knowledge has sterilized modern medical practices. It seems that doctors no longer treat the patient, but they treat a disease. I will explain myself with an example. Perhaps the most well known or publicized genetic disorder is Down syndrome. Technically, this genetic condition is called Trisomy 21 and it is the most common single cause of human birth defects. The symptoms of Down syndrome are caused by the presence of an extra copy of chromosome 21, giving the individual a total of 47 chromosomes instead of the normal 46 that humans typically have. In short, this causes problems with the way the body and brain develop, leading to a range of symptoms including a smaller and differently shaped head, delayed physical maturation, slow learning, and impulsive behavior. Studies have linked Downs syndrome with increased maternal age. It has thus become common to perform prenatal screening for Down syndrome (as well as other birth or genetic defects) in pregnancies associated with advanced maternal age.
It is these screenings which I specifically want to question. Despite any complaints about the tests themselves, is the acquisition of such information really necessary? This may seem like an odd question which should be answered simply, but it is not. The complications to this answer arrive through the application of this knowledge. You see, since prenatal screenings have been implemented, between 84 and 91 percent of Down syndrome babies that have diagnosed prenatally have been aborted.* In fact, it has nearly become almost unacceptable for parents to carry a pregnancy to term if the child has been prenatally diagnosed with Down syndrome. Doctors encourage patients to seek abortions, and the patients under the advice that such a pregnancy would be difficult to deal with, willingly do so. And so, Down syndrome babies are aborted with ruthless efficiency, an act the deprives the world of the joy that each child would bring with them.
This treatment of Down syndrome babies is what I mean by the sterilization of modern medicine by scientific knowledge. The baby is not seen as an individual. Rather, it is seen as a disease; something to be treated and eliminated. In this case, it seems that the scientific knowledge obtained through the prenatal testing is not only undesirable, but nearly immoral because it seems to be singularly applied to encourage abortion. At what point does scientific knowledge cross moral boundaries. Should application of scientific knowledge be weighed in the ethics of such knowledge? Almost certainly, I would say, "YES!" for it is the application of knowledge which leads to moral or immoral action. As with the prenatal testing, this knowledge is being used to obtain abortions. But this train of thought reaches even beyond abortion to implications of eugenics. In fact, the Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists of Canada recommended prenatal screenings “so that a greater number of women would have the option to terminate their pregnancies should fetal abnormalities be detected." This is indeed a disturbing step toward eugenics, to give the power to abort a baby based on its genetic disposition. Ethics guiding scientific research are desperately needed in order to regulate such practices. Although ethics discussions are present in the sciences, it is apparent that they are lagging far behind the rate of scientific discovery.
* Kramer RL, Jarve RK, Yaron Y, Johnson MP, Lampinen J, Kasperski SB, Evans MI. 1998. Determinants of parental decisions after the prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome. Am J Med Genet 79:172-174.
No comments:
Post a Comment