TuvixWasMurderedR1P t1_jeb91yd wrote
Reply to comment by Silent0n3_1 in Selected before birth | Embryo risk screening could lower the odds of illnesses ranging from depression to diabetes, but poses ethical problems by ADefiniteDescription
I don’t see why the Gattaca/eugenics parallels are “drivel.”
Put yourself in that Rawlsian “veil of ignorance.”
Pretend you’re a disembodied soul and can end up absolutely anywhere in the world, and in any body. Now what if you’re the one with a debilitating disease, or you’re the parent to the child with one, and you’re too poor to access this service.
Or let’s say you were born already several generations into this gigantic social experiment, but you happen to belong to a line of people who had been “left behind” by this technology, as it were. What are the real implications for living as a member of that biological underclass?
Are those lives that can sincerely said to be better off because of this?
Why is being critical of this technology “rolling the dice,” but its uncritical embrace is somehow not also a gamble?
Shield_Lyger t1_jebj3h8 wrote
> Pretend you’re a disembodied soul and can end up absolutely anywhere in the world, and in any body. Now what if you’re the one with a debilitating disease, or you’re the parent to the child with one, and you’re too poor to access this service.
Then you're in the same situation that you would be in if the service had never been created. The presumption that no lives should be improved unless all lives are improved strikes me as vapid. Ridding the world of opportunity is not a good solution to the problem of opportunity hoarding.
Silent0n3_1 t1_jebhw1o wrote
I don't have to pretend. A member of my family has a child with a debilitating disease, and she goes through hell while in the hospital with him. We all still love him and support her as much as we can while watching both of them go through hell. That's what most families do. I have no idea what the wandering soul parable has to do with anything that touches real lives other than to obfuscate with abstraction.
As far as being "left behind," yes, that is less ideal as we extrapolate in time the effects when compared to the group lucky enough to have first access vs those who don't. But that is also just empty moral finger wagging.
To condemn those who were able to take the first doses of antibiotics or vaccines that became available as "unethical" because there were groups in other countries that didn't have them available at the same exact time is empty of any real criticism. Maybe to deny them access is what you mean. That would be immoral.
The hope, I would think, is that this technology is allowed to grow and become more cost efficient so that, one day hopefully sooner rather than later, those "left behind" will also be able to have the choice to engage with this technology. That it is cheaper, safer, more effective, and thus able to become more widespread.
Also, note the wording of "choice." The choice to engage or not. Just like vaccines, who have plenty of superior moral fingers wagging at the perceived opposition in regards to the existence and utilization of that technology.
Do we regret my family experience? No. He is a gem that we love and care for. But if we could even just lower the possibility of it happening to others in the future? Then unequivocally, the answer is yes.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments