From: Rafal Smigrodzki (rms2g@virginia.edu)
Date: Thu Jan 16 2003 - 07:48:16 MST
Hal Finney wrote:
>
> How do we balance the risk to our children against our desire to
> reproduce? When is it OK to use a new technology to have a child that
> would not otherwise be possible, if that technology also carries an
> increased risk of birth defects?
>
### We could extend currently accepted practices as follows - since we do
not prohibit the reproduction of persons who produce only, or predominantly
very sick offspring, we have to accept any attempt at reproduction, no
matter how unlikely to produce healthy children. However, we could decide
that there must be a certain minimal level of "expected health" (percentage
of healthy surviving offspring). In that case, the principle of equality
before the law would require that all parents should be treated equally, and
both parents who endanger the health of their children by giving them e.g.
the gene for Huntington's disease, and the parents who use a dangerous
assistive technique, would be subject to the same sanctions. The expected
health level could be set at e.g. -2SD (i.e., a birth that would be two
standard deviations below the mean expected health, as determined by medical
and genetic forecasting methods, would be prohibited).
Another tack would be to require insurance for costs of extended care of
disabled children, and costs of wrongful life suits brought by the children,
including capped punitive damages. This would discourage frivolous
reproduction, and provide for the needs of the disabled, without burdening
the public purse.
Rafal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jan 21 2003 - 17:10:21 MST