Human Dignity: Therapeutic Reproduction Perspective
Human Dignity: Therapeutic Reproduction Perspective
One of the core reasons why human dignity is a critical factor in the issue of therapeutic
reproductive technology is because it relates to humans. It is concerned with the ethical, moral
and social reception of savior siblings and has been a controversial issue amongst humans to
discuss.
As outlined in this case study, to be human is to be multidimensional and this
multidimensionality is illuminated in the discussion of human dignity in using therapeutic
reproductive technology. Arriving at the decision to create a savior sibling would demand for the
addressing the issue from a multidimensional perspective. That is: understanding that the
ultimate goals of conducting a Pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) should be the
promotion of human dignity and ensuring that humans co-exist humanly. While some agree it is
a positive and rewarding experience, others oppose this view and challenge the ethicality behind
it. An interesting point was made with regards to humans stating that to be human is to be able to
hold a number of tensions together in a meaningful way (Macquarrie, 1982).
Inevitably, this issue of savior siblings allows for individuals to consider and experience
these tensions to learn, grow and change. Similarly, as we learnt that human dignity is both
something we already have but also something we strive to acquire, a deeper consideration of the
issue would allow for an increased sense of human dignity. As Kirchhoffer and Dierickx (2008)
note that, human dignity is crucial and meaningful to a human being and should be treated as a
“multidimensional concept.” Having a multidimensional understanding of both the existing and
ontological reality is essential in the maintenance of dignity. Even though there are minimal
cases of therapeutic reproduction and they assist in promoting human survival; the need to
Human Dignity: Therapeutic Reproduction
2
maintain the human dignity as well as the freedom of beings to make their choice is critical while
making a PGD decision.
Perspective 1: Therapeutic reproductive technology upholds human dignity only insofar as
it allows for the autonomous decision making of both the savior sibling and their ill sibling.
Human being deserves dignity can be acquired through moral behavior. As the savior
sibling it is morally justified to sacrifice oneself to help save another sibling, a human being.
Therefore, saving another human life conveys respect for human dignity. In addition, if this kind
of action is taken based on autonomous decisions, human dignity is preserved. Human dignity
and autonomous are key principles needed during the therapeutic reproduction process. While
upholding this, every human being is morally obliged sacrifice and undergoes a transplantation
process to save a life of another. Saving a life (in this case of an ailing sibling) needs to be
practiced in a morally fashion considering all the ethical issues attributable to the process.
As pointed by Macquarrie (1982) although the term ‘human’ is ambiguous, it has an
expression of “making and keeping human life human.” The need to minds other human beings
concerns is a way of upholding dignity.
Advancement of medical technology has indeed assisted in saving more human life. The
use of IVF test technique to identify the best and matching embryo to save a sibling is upholding
dignity. Contrary, improved technology may hinder autonomy as well as the success of a
therapeutic process. Since autonomy is much respected, as long as each individual’s autonomous
decision making is allowed, therapeutic reproductive technology should encourage the consent of
both parties involved. This will give the savior sibling a chance to choose whether to ‘save’ the
live of the ailing sibling. In this case, human dignity will be upheld. For instance, in the case of
Human Dignity: Therapeutic Reproduction
3
Jamie and Charlie, ‘savior sibling’ (Jamie) had even to think that he was just ‘born’ to be a
‘medical’ cure to his brother.
Human dignity is only preserved where autonomy and consent is upheld. In the case of
Jamie and Charlie, Jamie was not just born to be a medical cure to his brother. From the time
their parents first met in 1989, they wanted a large family of five children. By the time they
decided to conceive Jamie using IVF, they already had two children. They were bound to have
three more children, and there was a high probability that another son would be born. There was
also a high probability that the son would suffer from a genetic condition just like Charlie
(Levin, 2011). Resorting to Pre-Genetic Diagnosis was a manifestation of the parents’ respect for
human dignity since they would have a son who would have the necessary stem cells to save the
life of their elder son. They would also be ensuring that their unborn son would have the dignity
of enjoying a healthy life since PGD would eliminate any chance of a genetic disorder.
Under the legal framework in many Common Wealth countries, children under the age of
eighteen years are regarded as minors, and they do not have the capacity to consent to legal and
medical procedures. Parents have the legal and moral right to exercise the right to consent and
autonomy on behalf of their children (Do Carmo, 2013). When parents consent to a procedure,
they act on behalf of their children who do not have the mental or legal capacity to consent.
Therapeutic reproduction technologies promote human dignity in cases where there is the
parental consent of both parents. Human dignity would only be said to be abused when parents
oppose therapeutic reproduction technology, but medical officers go ahead with the procedure
without the consent of the parents.
In the case of Charlie and Jamie, for instance, Charlie was under the age of five while
Jamie was only one year old when the procedures were performed. If Charlie’s parents waited
Human Dignity: Therapeutic Reproduction
4
until he was old enough to give individual consent, he would either have died, or he would have
had to spend the rest of his life under transfusions and medications (Levin, 2011). Exposing
Charlie to endless suffering, which could have been terminated through a medical procedure,
would have been a violation of his human dignity. Parental consent in therapeutic reproduction
technology is an indisputable hallmark of human dignity. Evaluation of the consequences of
adopting this perspective in isolation is that it fails to put into consideration the feelings the
savior sibling and the sick sibling will have in their adult years.
Perspective 3: Therapeutic reproductive technology undermines the inherent dignity of the
human person because it relies on scientific selection of embryos and hence commodifies
the human persons.
Some of the behaviors such as discarding embryos which do not match with the doctor’s
or parent’s intent are immoral behavior. For instance, as the Life organization spokesman noted,
“Adam was the fifteenth embryo created which meant fourteen people were killed before him,”
(BBC NEWS, Health, 2000). The behavior only justifies being effective to the ailing sibling but
optional to the savior sibling.
Due to the advancement in medical technology, doctors have been intervening with the
human dignity especially when they claim to ‘create’ a human being through Pre-implantation
genetic diagnosis (PGD) process whereby exact tissue matches is tested (Do Carmo,2013).
This makes other human beings to be like ‘practical humans’ and undermines the creation
objective. Scientific selection of embryos has been criticized extensively on ethical basis due to
allegations that it results in the creation of designer babies as doctors take over the role of the
creator. PGD is criticized extensively because it has become a multibillion dollar business. It
faces limitations in countries such as France and England, and complete prohibition in countries
Human Dignity: Therapeutic Reproduction
5
such as Germany and Italy. Most couples have been travelling to the United States where there
are no extensive legal restrictions.
PGD was initially meant for noble purposes such as making sure that children did not
suffer from genetic illnesses inherited from their parents. However, over time PGD has been
abused and used for practices that abuse the concept of human dignity such as sex selection and
selection of a horde of other superficial character traits (Do Carmo, 2013). The initial purposes
of PGD which were to screen embryos for mutations and inherited diseases showed respect for
human dignity. The use Of PGD to screen for characteristics such as eye color, hair color, or the
sex child abuses the inherent dignity of human beings since it implies that children of a particular
sex, particular hair or eye color are superior to other children.
The issue of whether therapeutic reproduction in cases of creation of savior siblings
promotes or abuses human dignity is debatable. The idea appears to be noble when it is done to
save the life of a dying sibling. It however raises ethical issues such as the quality of life that will
be led by the savior child. This is because the process commodifies the savior child by turning
him into a consumer good that can be used and purchased. The human dignity of the savior child
is particularly compromised in cases where he or she has to spend several periods in hospital
undergoing medical procedures for the benefit of his or her sibling (Levin, 2011). The process
also affects the self worth of the siblings who are not involved in the process. In the case of
Jamie and Charlie, their sister felt unworthy because she could not help to save her brother’s life.
PGD arrangements may thus ruin the self-worth and self-esteem of the entire family (Kirchhoffer
& Dierickx, 2008). Everyone involved in the process, including the doctors may feel undignified.
Evaluation of the consequences of adopting this perspective in isolation is that it does not pout in
consideration the chronic consequences of failing to save the life of the sick sibling.
Human Dignity: Therapeutic Reproduction
6
Multidimensional of human dignity
According to Kirchhoffer and Dierickx (2008), “all humans have dignity …all humans
also seek to acquire dignity.” For this reason, a multidimensional approach coupled with mutual
understanding is regarded essential especially when conducting therapeutic reproduction.
Understanding human dignity in a multidimensional perspective will definitely be useful in the
protection of the person’s inherent potential as well as realizing the self worthiness of individuals
and their development. Human dignity is inherent, in that one gets it by virtue of being born
human. Religiously, people believe that God creates every human being with a purpose to fulfill
in the universe. Human dignity should be viewed from a multi-dimensional perspective because
it is not a mono-dimensional phenomenon. Taking into account one understanding or perception
is dangerous since it ignores the benefits of other perspectives.
The critical issue of therapeutic reproduction technology requires a multidimensional
approach since there is no single perception that is right or appropriate. The first quadrant of
human dignity states that humans are born with dignity by virtue of belonging to the human
species. The second quadrant suggests that human beings can lose or acquire dignity through
their sense of self-worth. The third quadrant states that human dignity acquire dignity based in
their possession of human capacities while other fourth quadrant premises that dignity is
acquired or lost through moral or immoral behavior (Macquarrie, 1981). None of the four
quadrants is completely right or completely wrong. The four quadrants only make logical sense
when they are evaluated holistically. Similarly, the two perspectives on therapeutic reproduction
technologies discussed above are only rational when they are evaluated from a multi-dimensional
perspective. Even though therapeutic technologies promote human dignity when parental consent
is given to save the life of a surviving sibling it’s also important to consider the feelings of self
Human Dignity: Therapeutic Reproduction
7
worth that the sick child, the savoir child, and other siblings will have about the procedure when
they become autonomous human beings.
Conclusion
Human dignity is a critical factor in the case study on savior siblings since it affects the
self-worth of all the people involved in the process including doctors, parents and the siblings.
The first perspective stresses on the importance of autonomy and consent as the basis for
conducting therapeutic reproductive technologies in a manner that promotes human dignity. The
second perspective explores ways through which therapeutic technologies undermine human
dignity since the scientific selection of embryos commodifies human beings. The weaknesses of
the two perspectives create the need for a multidimensional approach of human dignity. The
multidimensional is important as it weighs the advantages and disadvantages of each perspective,
and it enables a person to reach a decision to use PGD in cases when the procedure more benefits
than disadvantages for all the parties involved.
Human Dignity: Therapeutic Reproduction
8
References
BBC NEWS, (2000). Baby created to save older sister. Health, 4th October. Retrieved January
25, 2014 from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/954408.stm
Do Carmo, M. (2013). Child Autonomy and Rights to One’s Own Body: PGD and Parental
Decision Making. Retrieved January 25, 2014 from:
http://www.thebioethicsproject.org/essays/child-autonomy-and-the-rights-to-ones-ownbody-pgd-and-parental-decision-making/
Kirchhoffer, D.G. & Dierickx, K. (2008). Human dignity and human tissue: a meaningful ethical
relationship. Journal of Medical Ethics, 37: 552-556.
Levin, A (2011). I Knew I was Born to Save Charlie Instead of Being Born Just for Me. Mail
Online.
Macquarrie, J. (1982), Becoming. In Search of Humanity, 1-9. London: SCM,