The parental obligation to expand a child's range of open futures when making genetic trait selections for their child

Bioethics

Volumn 21, Issue 4, 2007, Pages 191-197

  Schmidt, Eric B ^a,b,c  

^a SEATTLE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b Washington State Court of Appeals ^*  (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

Author keywords

Children; Futures; Genetics; Obligation; Parents; Selection; Traits

Indexed keywords

CAREER; CHILD REARING; CHILDBIRTH; CULTURAL FACTOR; ETHICS; GENETIC TRAIT; HUMAN; HUMAN RIGHTS; PARENTAL ATTITUDE; PARENTAL BEHAVIOR; PREGNANCY; REVIEW; SOCIAL BEHAVIOR;

FORECASTING; GENETIC ENGINEERING; HUMANS; MORAL OBLIGATIONS; PARENT-CHILD RELATIONS; PARENTS;

EID: 33947276279     PISSN: 02699702     EISSN: 14678519     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8519.2007.00545.x     Document Type: Review

References (18)

1. Some argue that all parental genetic trait selections would be unethical. See, for example, L.R. Kass. Triumph or Tragedy? The Moral Meaning of Genetic Technology. Am J Jurisprud 2000; 45: 1-16. I will not address those arguments in this paper.
2. I do not argue in this paper that parents have an affirmative obligation to use genetic trait selection to expand the range of their child's future. I argue only that if parents elect to use genetic trait selection, they have an obligation to do so in a way that expands the range of their child's future.
3. J. Feinberg. 1980. The Child's Right to an Open Future. In Whose Child? Children's Rights, Parental Authority, and State Power. W. Aiken & H. LaFollette, eds. Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc.: 124-153.
4. Ibid: 149.
5. D. Davis. 2001. Genetic Dilemmas: Reproductive Technology, Parental Choices, and Children's Futures. New York: Routledge.
6. Ibid: 65.
7. Ibid: 66. Dan Brock proposes a similar standard in which parents should not use genetic trait selections that would 'so narrow children's range of opportunities as to violate their right to an open future'. A. Buchanan et al. 2000. From Chance to Choice: Genetics and Justice. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press: 171.
8. Davis, op. cit. note 5: 66.
9. Ibid: 65.
10. Ibid: 66.
11. I assume, for purposes of argument, that the parental genetic trait selections suggested in this article are possible, safe and effective. It is highly unlikely that parents would risk congenital deformities in an effort to increase the height, visual acuity or auditory acuity of their children.
12. Davis suggests that parents with achondroplasia (dwarfism) who wish to use genetic trait selection to ensure that their children also have achondroplasia would not violate their children's rights to an open future because having short stature would not foreclose momentous pieces of their adult lives. Davis, op. cit. note 5: 66.
13. Some in the Deaf culture deny that hearing persons can be fully fluent in sign language because they cannot be fully part of the Deaf culture. O. Sacks. 1989. Seeing Voices: A Journey Into the World of the Deaf. Berkeley: University of California Press: 126-129.
14. Robert Crouch argues that declining to use cochlear implants in deaf children allows them to participate in the Deaf culture, 'a unique community with a rich history, a rich language, and a value system of its own'. R.A. Crouch. Letting the Deaf be Deaf: Reconsidering the Use of Cochlear Implants in Pre-Linguistically Deaf Children. Hastings Cent Rep 1997; 27: 14-21 at 16.
15. Some claims by children of resentment may raise Parfit's non-identity problem. D. Parfit. 1984. Reasons and Persons. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press: 355-367. I will not attempt to address that issue in this paper.
16. Another concern, noted by Davis and others, is that such genetic trait selections may commodify the child, in that the parents are creating the child for her specific future traits. Davis, op. cit. note 5: 122-124.
17. See also D. Davis. What's Wrong with Cloning? Jurimetrics 1997; 38: 83,
18. and L.R. Kass, op. cit. note 1. I hope to address this concern further in future work.