Jump to content

Menu

Care to weigh in on ethical questions for daughter's college debate?


Recommended Posts

My college student dd has been assigned to a debate group that has to form arguments to support mandated genetic testing/counseling and parenting classes. While some of the students in her group support these ideas in part, they are certainly not squarely in this camp. They feel like the ideas they've come up with are "flimsy" at best and Orwellian at worst.

 

So, she asked me to ask for hive wisdom! :) Without starting any debate here, would anyone care to offer their best arguments in favor of mandated genetic testing/counseling and mandated parenting classes? TIA :001_smile:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I was in college, my debate topic was, "Let it be resolved that fetal tissue therapies should be available" not exact wording, but that was the gist.

 

We didn't know until literally 2 mins before the debate which side we were arguing, so had to thoroughly research both povs.

 

So, get them to construct their argument, and then pick it apart, find their flaws.

 

Be wary of talking money. Profs, ime, want firm, hard #s if you start saying, "Well, it would save $", then they ask, 'how much?'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My college student dd has been assigned to a debate group that has to form arguments to support mandated genetic testing/counseling and parenting classes. While some of the students in her group support these ideas in part, they are certainly not squarely in this camp. They feel like the ideas they've come up with are "flimsy" at best and Orwellian at worst.

 

So, she asked me to ask for hive wisdom! :) Without starting any debate here, would anyone care to offer their best arguments in favor of mandated genetic testing/counseling and mandated parenting classes? TIA :001_smile:

 

There are oft-rehearsed arguments in favor of these mandates, but I think the students are going to have to accept that any such arguments are going to be Orwellian. I suggest they just take that as read and complete the assignment using the arguments they can come up with on their own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry. I don't think either of those things should be mandated so I can't argue for them.

 

Really? You can't think of the arguements in favor? You're smart, I'm surprised.

 

Arguments for:

 

It benefits locally: genetic testing allows for parents to make choices regarding breeding that match their family resources. They can make informed choices to conserve family cash, time, availabilty. This allows families to attend to work, adequately parent their children.

 

It benefits on a larger scale: sick or mentally ill children take a tremendous amount of resources, often from communities and governments. These funds come from taxes.

 

It may further useful research.

 

 

As far as mandatory parenting classes:

 

It may decrease the need for CPS.

It would give everyone a consistent, level playing field, for parentig - all parents would have the same information.

It allows the system to catch at risk persons before it's too late.

It takes the stigma away from needing help with parenting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not in favor of mandated parenting classes, but a short trip to walmart usually changes my mind. :glare:

 

For the affirmative, look at other professions and the licensing requisites. We, as a society, expect at least minimal education for people in any profession. Even when the stakes are so much lower, i.e. a fridge, we are assured the tech has been trained to a certain degree.

 

For evidence, have the team use personal experience. "If my parents had taken parenting classes, my life would have been better wrt ______." Also, find evidence of horrible parenting that could have been prevented had the parents been educated.

Edited by Aggie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the purposes of a class debate....

 

I could probably come up with a "for the greater good" type argument for mandated genetic testing. Increasing our knowledge of the human genome with the idea of being able to reduce or correct genetic defects. Giving prospective parents knowledge about potential risks before conception.

 

Mandated parenting classes is a bit more of a stretch. A corollary argument could be set up about the value of an educated populace. It might be easier to suggest it as a requirement for high school graduation - similiar to required s ex ed, drivers ed and personal finance classes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I asked her for more clarification; I'll cut and paste her answers below.

 

". . . before getting pregnant, testing to determine whether the parents are carriers of certain genetic conditions/gender-linked conditions. Prenatally, testing to see if the fetus has any genetic conditions or is predisposed to any conditions."

 

I asked, for purposes of the debate, if this would be for the purpose of selective abortion.

 

"Can be but not necessarily. That's a big part of the argument surrounding it. Finding out about a serious genetic condition could lead to abortion or it could just provide parents with more time to prepare to care for the child or have more time to find closure if the child is going to die shortly after birth."

 

Please keep in mind that this is not a personal stand she is taking, but rather an assigned group debate where students had no say in which side of the argument they had to take. She's studying to go into family counseling/psychology and genuinely wants to understand all sides of these issues. Thanks to anyone who is willing to share their ideas/viewpoints. I know that these are sensitive issues and don't wish to fuel any dissension on the hive; this is purely an informational request.:001_smile:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, while I am NOT NOT NOT in favor of this, one argument that stood out for me was that if genetic testing were required, and if indeed selective abortion were allowed/required, over time certain genetic disorders would be "bred out" of the human race. In other words, if no one who was a carrier for certain genetic disorders gave birth or created new carriers, eventually certain disorders would cease to exist, or at the very most would be found very seldom in the population at large. Sort of similar to the mass required vaccination arguments

 

Cindy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Genetic testing" is too vague. What kind of genetic testing are they talking about?

 

My whole family is now undergoing genetic testing to see if they carry the markers that I have for ovarian cancer. Even my sons will have to do this in their 20s, because my kind of cancer is related to colon and prostate cancer. This gives my sisters the opportunity to have prophylactic hysterectomies and will make my sons aware of the necessity for screenings and vigilance.

 

Now if they are talking about genetic testing for gender or birth defects, than that is a different ball game. That is where you get into the Orwellian realm. I can see the appeal of wanting to breed genetic disorders out of the population, but I don't really believe that it is ethical to do so.

 

Now, if they were doing the genetic testing in order to give parents a chance to research and get counseling on various disorders, I might be on board with that.

 

Also, I've met many people whom I think could benefit from mandatory parenting classes, including dh and me!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Debate is a great learning experience. Understanding the other side will ultimately improve her ability to defend her own moral position.

 

One argument she may want to consider is that knowing genetic conditions may allow for immediate actions after birth that will help the baby be healthier. Knowing about the disorder may allow for needed surgery or for dietary modifications that could decrease the risk of irreparable damage. Just to give one example -testing for PKU http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenylketonuria

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, while I am NOT NOT NOT in favor of this, one argument that stood out for me was that if genetic testing were required, and if indeed selective abortion were allowed/required, over time certain genetic disorders would be "bred out" of the human race. In other words, if no one who was a carrier for certain genetic disorders gave birth or created new carriers, eventually certain disorders would cease to exist, or at the very most would be found very seldom in the population at large. Sort of similar to the mass required vaccination arguments

 

Cindy

 

Not to get off topic but I do not think this is true. I thought some genetic disorders were the result of random mutations, I'm thinking of disorders like Downs Syndrome, Trisomy 13, and Trisomy 18.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really? You can't think of the arguements in favor? You're smart, I'm surprised.

 

Arguments for:

 

It benefits locally: genetic testing allows for parents to make choices regarding breeding that match their family resources. They can make informed choices to conserve family cash, time, availabilty. This allows families to attend to work, adequately parent their children.

 

It benefits on a larger scale: sick or mentally ill children take a tremendous amount of resources, often from communities and governments. These funds come from taxes.

 

It may further useful research.

 

 

I think though that the problem is the "mandated" part. Giving parents information and choices is a plausible reason for genetic testing, but not so much to say everyone MUST have it if they are having a baby.

 

And as far as the cost of those with disorders - well, that is getting into the Orwellian for sure. I suspect most would consider that an argument against rather than for mandatory testing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to get off topic but I do not think this is true. I thought some genetic disorders were the result of random mutations, I'm thinking of disorders like Downs Syndrome, Trisomy 13, and Trisomy 18.

 

I expect that is why she said it might help eliminate or reduce the incidence of certain disorders. It wouldn't help with the kinds you are mentioning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was a famously provocative article published in Philosophy and Public Affairs back in the 1980s titled something like "Licensing Parents." The author was Hugh LaFollette. It might be worth your daughter and her team looking up -- I'm sure that her university library will have it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry. I don't think either of those things should be mandated so I can't argue for them.

 

?? The point of debate isn't to only pick "your" side or "winners". It is to stretch the mind on the rack of thought. Learning to argue both sides makes for more reasoned judgement. Plus, if you really want to defend something, you ought to know the other side's strengths.

 

One approach would to be argue that the earth has plenty of people now, and we need quality not quantity: children who have enough to eat so they can grow good brains, not be shaken by immature parents to keep those good brains, and some level of involvement by the parents to educate those good brains.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think though that the problem is the "mandated" part. Giving parents information and choices is a plausible reason for genetic testing, but not so much to say everyone MUST have it if they are having a baby.

 

And as far as the cost of those with disorders - well, that is getting into the Orwellian for sure. I suspect most would consider that an argument against rather than for mandatory testing.

 

Dude. I am not in favor of it.

 

I'm kinda :confused: at the responses here. It's an assignment. The student referenced in the OP is given a scripted, delineated assignment. I offered answers for that; it seems obvious to me that the posts do not necessarily reflect actual opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really? You can't think of the arguements in favor? You're smart, I'm surprised.

 

I didn't say I couldn't think of arguments for either. I said I do not think it should be mandated. I can think of no reason that the government needs to be involved in parenting beyond CPS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think though that the problem is the "mandated" part. Giving parents information and choices is a plausible reason for genetic testing, but not so much to say everyone MUST have it if they are having a baby.

 

Exactly. It is the mandated part that I have no use for. I can't think of any reason that it need be mandated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

?? The point of debate isn't to only pick "your" side or "winners". It is to stretch the mind on the rack of thought. Learning to argue both sides makes for more reasoned judgement. Plus, if you really want to defend something, you ought to know the other side's strengths.

 

One approach would to be argue that the earth has plenty of people now, and we need quality not quantity: children who have enough to eat so they can grow good brains, not be shaken by immature parents to keep those good brains, and some level of involvement by the parents to educate those good brains.

I get that.

 

This was the question:

..would anyone care to offer their best arguments in favor of mandated genetic testing/counseling and mandated parenting classes?

 

So my particular answer for the question asked, was (No, implied) Sorry I can't think of any reason for mandated either option. OR in other words, "Sorry, I can't help your dd."

 

If the question were reversed, then yes. I could think of many many reasons to not mandate either option.

 

I don't see why so many people have problem with my answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a genetic condition which at least one of my kids inherited. I know one didn't and I have no idea about the third because he refused to be tested. Anyway, I have no idea why anyone would test for this prenatally or even if you could. It is a minor issue for most people and just needs some precautions- I would really be aghast if anyone was aborting a kid with Factor V Leiden since it doesn't have to hardly affect anyone's life. (It makes your blood more likely to clot and that risk increases as you age, however, there is medication to manage that if you get problems and then you go about your life).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the purposes of a debate, I would focus on facts rather than moral arguments. Facts would include things like annual expenses reported by individual families; state and federal expense for research and treatment; and emotional responses families and individuals report with regard to those genetic conditions that can be screened for. One point of screening is to prepare for or prevent undue costs (financial and emotional). For some this will mean more organized programs, for others this will mean terminating certain pregnancies. In either case, the moral argument is on the individual to make, not your daughter to support.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For mandated parenting classes: many children are killed each year by parents because they would not stop crying (particularly if it's at night and the parents are sleep-deprived), and for potty training accidents. Mandatory parent training in the hospital when a baby is born about how to help the baby sleep through the night, what to do to calm a crying infant and what to do when you are feeling like you're going to lose it, potty training tips and reasonable expectations would save lives. This training could be repeated at all well child check-ups, etc. 1) Prevention of children's deaths, 2) prevention of the waste of lives of young (they are usually young) parents jailed for losing it, 3) prevention of siblings deprived of a parent because their parent was jailed.

 

Mandatory genetic testing: 1) so that parents could have a chance to grieve, find resources, and get educated for a number of months before the baby is born 2) genetics does not always equal destiny. Knowing there is a genetic predisposition to something can help you alter environmental factors that could contribute to, or prevent it. It can help you identify the onset at the earliest possible time, thus giving a better prognosis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pre-conception genetic testing - if both partners are heterozygous for a recessive trait and they are made aware of this, then they have the option of going through IVF and having embryos tested to make sure only carriers or non-affected (ie. did not get two copies of the recessive allele) would be implanted. This is being done already for Mendelian disorders like Cystic Fibrosis, Tay Sachs, Sickle Cell Anemia.

 

Pre-Natal genetic testing - allows parents time to obtain resources, whether that means connecting with other families whose children have the same disorder or disability, finding doctors who are knowledgeable in the treatment of their child's disorder, setting up needed interventions (like heart surgery) or having proper medical equipment on hand. Also allows parents to educate themselves on ways to prevent the actual disorder from manifesting (ie. dietary restrictions for PKU) or was to mitigate the effects.

 

For issues like cancer genes, it has already been mentioned that if you know you have a gene that predisposes you to getting a certain disease (let's say breast cancer) you have the option to try to prevent before you get the disease, or avoid environmental situations that could bring it on. For example, my MIL had breast cancer as did several women in her family, so my SILs knew never to take hormonal birth control. I do not have any history of breast cancer on my side of the family, but I know that my girls will have to be more careful because DH may have passed it on to them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

my daughter brought up something similar tonight. she is in a PharmD program. (the school she's at is very big into genotyping) the pharm industry is starting to take into account genetic differences in drug development. some genotypes are sensitive and will hyper react to things other genotypes don't. knowing those things can allow medical providers to have more accurate medications, and restrict medications that would be problematic.

 

I have two children with 'minor' genetic mutations that affect how they absorb/utilize vitamins, so this isn't "academic' to me.

 

that said, I have always signed the waiver insurance companies insisted upon to refuse genetic testing during pregnancy.

Edited by gardenmom5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pre-conception genetic testing - if both partners are heterozygous for a recessive trait and they are made aware of this, then they have the option of going through IVF and having embryos tested to make sure only carriers or non-affected (ie. did not get two copies of the recessive allele) would be implanted. This is being done already for Mendelian disorders like Cystic Fibrosis, Tay Sachs, Sickle Cell Anemia.

 

Pre-Natal genetic testing - allows parents time to obtain resources, whether that means connecting with other families whose children have the same disorder or disability, finding doctors who are knowledgeable in the treatment of their child's disorder, setting up needed interventions (like heart surgery) or having proper medical equipment on hand. Also allows parents to educate themselves on ways to prevent the actual disorder from manifesting (ie. dietary restrictions for PKU) or was to mitigate the effects.

 

.

 

I have a kid who is a carrier of something that is pretty significant that most people would not want a child to suffer from, if it were possible to avoid in the first place--I don't mean termination but PIGD or choosing adoption). If I were her, I would absolutely want genetic testing done--for example if a potential spouse felt like they wanted bio children, but was also a carrier, it would def. be something they would need to discuss. They would need to consider how they felt about PIGD and IVF and adoption.

 

That said, I do NOT think it should be mandated. We chose not to have pre-natal testing. My son has Down syndrome. I am glad not to have known, but I also know many people who were glad to have a pre-natal diagnosis before their baby was born. It should be an informed choice. Also--in general, the medical community is very forceful in advising termination in the case of Down syndrome--without giving parents truly informed consent. Another reason I am not in favor of mandating testing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dude. I am not in favor of it.

 

I'm kinda :confused: at the responses here. It's an assignment. The student referenced in the OP is given a scripted, delineated assignment. I offered answers for that; it seems obvious to me that the posts do not necessarily reflect actual opinion.

 

Oh, I didn't think it was your actual opinion.:)

 

I just think it is really hard to find reasons to have mandatory genetic testing that don't also function as reasons not to have it.

 

There are a lot of things it is easy to see both sides of a question even if you really think one side is much stronger, but I think a lot of people are finding it difficult with this issue. A statement like "well, if we had mandatory genetic testing we could prevent the births of people who would take extra resources to care for" could be seen equally as a reason for it or a reason not to ever allow such a law to pass. Except, when you say it baldly like that, the first just seems kind of evil. Sounding evil may not be not what someone in a debate is going for.

Edited by Bluegoat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...