From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Thu Jan 16 2003 - 19:05:53 MST
Rafal writes
> 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"...
The pronoun "we" occurs five times in the above four sentences.
Hal has suggested that perhaps the question "who decides?" should
often be deferred during discussions about what is desirable.
But the whole point of Sowell's "Knowledge and Decisions", which
I've had to consult lately, is that deciding the *level* at which
different decisions occur is crucial to society's well-being.
Why not leave all these decisions to the people most closely
affected? They have the knowledge of their particular situations
aspirations! Is it because we feel that they may make a mistake?
To take Hal's question in the best way, then. What if I and
my spouse (a) wish to have exactly one child (b) want to bring
into the world the healthiest, smartest, happiest, best person
we can, how should we balance the risk and benefit?
Let's not forget the way that people often decide such questions,
namely, they watch the practice evolve. If it seems to be going
well for people, if their friends and family approve, then they
go for it. So we have yet another reason to allow people the
freedom in such matters: we learn by experimentation.
> 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.
Sorry for being in a terminally terminological mood, but
I can't help but observe your preference for words like
"require" and "discourage", and "punitive" and "damages".
Where did you say you came from, again?
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jan 21 2003 - 17:10:21 MST