The people have recognises the anguish experienced by involuntarily childless couples.For such couples, surrogacy would provide an opportunity solution.Surrogacy have several forms. Surrogacy also risks the exploitation of some in order to meet the needs of other people.The evolution of legal procedures to implement and ratify the intent of the parties to surrogacy contracts across the United States has been patchwork, at best.What documentation style does she use when citing sources?
Reproductive medicine Medical technology has increased reproductive choice the three main reasons 1. the possibility of terminating a pregnancy 2. the means of assisting conception 3. the ability to investigate and help predict the likely healthy status and much more of the foetus The ethics around reproductive choice Procreative autonomy -- the interests of parents Within that the human rights act is provision with regards to procreation. Accordingly, the state or professional interference should be kept to a minimum and exercised only in extreme situations. Essentially this means that couples have a right to procreate. The interests of the future child this is particularly relevant in assisted reproduction. Where as procreative autonomy is within the rights of couples, assisted reproduction is not. Should we have a view in the prevention of access to assisted reproduction on the basis of interests in the potential or future child. The interests of the state reproductive choices affect the composition of the future population. Therefore the state has an interest in what choices are made. Should parents have a say in situations that could affect the state, for example the selection of sex. Such interests may be relevant where the future child may require significant resources in the child care Preserving life central to the issue of termination is the morality of killing a foetus. Even if considerable weight is given to procreative autonomy, many would take the view that reproductive choice should not be enabled to killing an already existing foetus Abortion (termination) At the heart of much of the debate around abortion, embryo experimentation and in vitro fertilisation is the question of the moral status of the embryo and foetus. Is it wrong to kill human embryos foetuses, and if it is, is that wrong significant enough to outweigh other goods? There are many different positions on this issue. What we all agree on is that there are very few justifications, if any, are killing a child or adult. Such killing is a serious wrong. The question is at what stage in the development of the human organism from egg to child does it become a significant wrong to kill the organism? Some will state that there is a point in the development process where it becomes wrong, others deny that there is any point at all. Views on determining the moral status of the embryo 1. The identity as a human organism according to this view, there are essentially no good grounds for according a different moral status to the human being at different stages in its development. If it is wrong to kill the 1 child then it would have been just as wrong to kill that child at any stage in its existence. Most supporters of this position put the moment at when the embryo obtains full moral status from a developmental point at around about 14 days. the view that an embryo, from the point of conception, has the same role status as a child is sometimes called the right to life or the pro- life position. 2. The potential to be a person the argument is based on the statement that if it is wrong to kill a child then if you kill an embryo or foetus at any stage, you are carrying out an act that will have the effect of the potential future child not existing. You are in effect killing a potential child. 3. Identity as a person an alternative to the pro life position as outlined in one above is that the view of the moral status of the embryo depends upon its properties, and not on its identity or potential. The argument is based on the fact that a person is not the same as a human embryo in. A person has certain characteristics. The important moral issue is at what stage during development does a human organism become a person. There are many different answers to this question. Some will say that a person must involve some degree of consciousness. Conscious life, it is thought, or at least the perception of pain, starts at about 24 weeks. Taking this view, a foetus less than 24 weeks does not have moral status. But there was perception of pain indicate consciousness? Even primitive animals feel pain and yet we do not give them the status of human person in the terms of the morality of killing. What is it that distinguishes a human being from a non-human being such that one has a strong right to life and the other does not. Some focus on mental capacity, others on the ability to form relationships. Some religious traditions state it is the point when the soul enters the body 4. the value given to the human organism is crucial some would argue that at birth, the infant takes on an important social role and this justifies conferring moral status (i.e. he the right to exist) on this basis, a strong prohibition of killing infants is justified. It is for this reason that killing a human infant or child with severe learning difficulties, is morally more serious and killing an animal (such as an adult ape) even if the nonhuman animal possesses more of the morally important features of a person Some circumstances and reasons for an abortion that might affect its ethical status the pregnancy is a result of rape a woman is only 16 years old having a child could interfere with the woman's career the woman would be a single mother and a very poor the couple already have three children the woman is depressed and feels unable to cope with motherhood prenatal testing has revealed that the trials will be severely handicapped The legal status of abortion 2 o The offences against the Person act 1861 this act remains the definitive law in England. It gives the statutory grounds to the effect that abortion is a crime except where subsequent legislation provides protection against criminal prosecution. It was designed to tackle two main issues a. backstreet abortions b. the lack of clarity over the question of when a doctor could carry out an abortion for the sake of the mother's health o the abortion act 1967 as amended in 1990 the act gives a doctor who carries out the termination within the terms of the act, immunity from prosecution. It does not decriminalise abortion in general. Nor does it provide protection for anyone other than the doctor. A number of points need emphasis a. prior to 24 weeks, a doctor may carry out a termination with the woman's consent on very wide grounds. The majority of terminations are carried out under this section. b. After 24 weeks, termination is any lawful either to prevent risk of considerable harm to the mother or the sake of the foetus c. except in an emergency, two doctors are required to be of the opinion that termination is justified Key points in the law on abortion o doctors may refuse to carry out an abortion on the grounds of conscientious objection. The burden of proof lies with the doctor to show that he did have a conscientious objection. Conscientious objection is not a defence however if the termination is necessary to save the life or to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman. o The act does not give the woman the right to demand an abortion however a doctor may be found negligent either are not advising a woman of the possibility of a termination or for not carrying out a termination where appropriate o the foetus has no right to life. That is, its status in law is dramatically affected by birth. The foetus cannot be the subject of child protection and the children act o a woman has a legal right to refuse an abortion o the father of a foetus has no legal right to prevent a woman from having an abortion and has no right to be consulted about it. Maternal -- foetal relations There have been a number of cases heard in the courts concerning the legality of enforcing a Caesarean section on an unwilling woman. The issue is very complex however the Court of Appeal in 1997 stated that "a competent woman, who has the capacity to decide, may, for religious reasons, other reasons, for rational or irrational reasons or for no reason at all, choose not to have medical intervention, even though the consequence may be the death or serious handicap of the child she bears, or her own death. In that event the courts do not have the jurisdiction to declare medical intervention lawful and the question of her own best interests, objectively considered, does not arise." Although the courts have interpreted common law as giving a competent woman the right to refuse treatment, they do fall over backwards to find the woman incompetent in order perhaps to justify setting the foetus. 3 Similar injuries to the foetus could be considered: o a woman who has disregard for her health, for example smoking, drinking, drugs, and the effect on the foetus o a woman who delays reproduction from for example aged 30 years to 40 years. The child has a very high risk of Down's syndrome that would not have occurred had the woman being younger. Ethical considerations o autonomy. Such constraints infringe the woman's autonomy o privacy. The woman has the right not to have her body innovated or even touched without consent, in other words battery. o Foetal status. In English law the foetus has no status as a person until birth. The rights of a person (a woman) should not be subjugated to the rights, if any, of an entity that is not a person o public policy. The consequences of allowing foetal interests to affect the legal provisions for restraining people's behaviour is undesirable. Two separate pregnant women for behaviour that would be tolerated in men or in woman who are not pregnant The state has intervened in constraining the pregnant woman's behaviour in the case of thalidomide. This sedative had no significant adverse effects on mothers have is taken when pregnant, it interfered with limb development. Rather than informing women of these possible effects and allowing them to choose whether or not to take the sedative, the state banned it in interests of future people. Assisted reproduction The first test-tube baby occurred in 1978. Some believe that IVF and related techniques are always wrong. These arguments include: o killing embryos is wrong. Some types of fertility treatment involves the production of embryos that are subsequently not used in treatment and are destroyed o IVF is unnatural. There are problems with this approach, the first is what is natural and what is unnatural, the second is that much of medicine is unnatural, for example intravenous antibiotics for somebody with septicaemia. o IVF is harmful to marriage o IVF harms women. These arguments centred on claims that many controlled these technologies and hence control female reproduction. Furthermore, such technologies helped to perpetuate a view that women cannot be completely fulfilled unless they have children. Many women have take the opposite view and see the reproductive technology is a means to enhancing their freedom and choice Examples of people who may seek IVF a single mother a couple, one of whom has a serious life-threatening disease a postmenopausal woman aged 50 years a woman of 35 who has undergone a premature menopause a couple, one of whom has had previous voluntary sterilisation a couple who have suffered the death of a child a same sex couple a couple who have had a child taken into care There are three main interests that are important: 1. the interests of the potential child the law place the interests of the child that may result from assisted reproduction as of paramount importance. The first is an analogy with 4 adoption. Which parent is best able to provide for this baby. An argument against this approach is that with adoption the baby exists already. With infertility treatment, if help is refused, the child will never come into existence. However the talk of the potential child is not a meaningless discussion, should a couple be prevented from conceiving on the basis that the child would suffer immensely, perhaps from some dreadful genetic condition. 2. The interests of the potential parent fertility clinics are often faced with couples who want IVF although there are reasons for thinking that this would not be in the parent's best interests. One approach would be to explain the professionals decision-making however if after due deliberation the couple still wish to go ahead and will pay the costs, should the treatment to be provided? 3. Interests of the state the state has interests in the people who are born even if the couple are paying for the entire costs themselves. For example, the child could have profound disabilities requiring considerable welfare provision. Should lesbian couples have children? An argument for this could be the state is condoning a former family life that it should not condone. Assisted reproduction and the law The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 this authority regulates much of the provision for insisting reproduction. It covers the use of donated genetic material for example aches and sperm, the storage and the research. Under the act, if the couple are refused treatment by a licensed centre, reason must be given. Two principal grounds for refusal are that the couple may be medically unsuitable and secondly that it is not in the interests of the welfare of the potential child. The Surrogacy Arrangements Act 1985 the commercial basis and surrogacy is a criminal offence and therefore the facilitators of commercial surrogacy would be committing an illegal act. However the act specifically gives immunity to the actual parties themselves. 5
Pages to are hidden for
"Reproductive medicine"Please download to view full document