so i have to write a bioethics paper in my genetics class. the situation is: a woman, who is pregnant, is asked to take a genetic test for cystic fibrosis for statistical reasons (to see how many people where carriers of the disease in northern california). she agrees (1) and finds that she is a carrier. now the father worries and he also does the test and finds out he is also a carrier of the recessive disorder. the woman is pregnant with twins that both have been tested positive for the disease (2). she decides to keep the twins. she then gets pregnant a year later; the fetus tests positive for the disease and the pregnancy is terminated (3). she gets pregnant once more and has a healthy child (4).
now in the scenario, there are 3-4 issues that have been marked, im just wondering what you guys think about the ethics of this situation. (1) should she have agreed to the test? (2) should she have tested the unborn twins? should she have aborted the twins? (3) should she be trying to have a healthy child knowing full well that there is a chance that their next baby will have the disease? (4) is it fair that she now has a healthy child and twins that have CF?
just some thoughts. lol dont worry, i wont be using your work in my paper.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Remember the String of Ears
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
How is (1) voluntarily agreeing to a genetic test an ethical issue?
(2) regards an issue of freedom of choice. You could either argue that the woman reserves the right to birth children, no matter how ugly or painful their lives will be. They may end up living happy lives. You could also argue that, in such a circumstance, it is cruel and unusual to allow such a child to exist, because their life will obviously be fucked up.
(3) is also an issue of choice.
(4) again, same thing.
At the root of each issue (besides from 1, I'm not sure why that's considered an issue) is an abortion issue, which rages vehemently in modern society. You could argue that it is immoral to take a life, no matter the life it will lead, or that it is immoral to allow such a life to continue when it can be "nipped at the bud."
Personally, I think people ought to be allowed to terminate their children up until the age of 9.
That's a pretty depressing situation you've got there.
Anyway, let's go through this point by point.
(1&2) I think testing yourself and the foetus(es) is a good practice. If you first test you and your partner you have some insight if your child might have Cystic Fibrosis. Testing the foetuses themselves might be a bit more stressful, but when both parents are carriers it's probably the right thing to do.
I would have advised an abortion if I were them. Cystic Fibrosis is a terrible disease where your body is slowly disintegrating, and I wouldn't wish that to anybody.
(3) Now this is the hardest point of it all. Knowing that your child has a one in four chance of having CF is a disheartening prospect, but having no children of your own might not be what you want. If you don't mind adopting children then I would encourage to do that. The other option is that you continue to have children and abort any who have the hereditary disease.
(4) Now I can't really call this a matter of fairness, since it's all statistics. It sucks that the odds weren't in your favour, but nobody could control those odds so there's no fairness involved. It is a terrible situation though.
so i have to write a bioethics paper in my genetics class. the situation is: a woman, who is pregnant, is asked to take a genetic test for cystic fibrosis for statistical reasons (to see how many people where carriers of the disease in northern california). she agrees (1) and finds that she is a carrier. now the father worries and he also does the test and finds out he is also a carrier of the recessive disorder. the woman is pregnant with twins that both have been tested positive for the disease (2). she decides to keep the twins. she then gets pregnant a year later;
Oh wait, so what happened to the twins? I know you provided a link about cystic fibrosis but could just sum up for me what a baby born with this disorder can expect within the first year of its life?
the fetus tests positive for the disease and the pregnancy is terminated (3). she gets pregnant once more and has a healthy child (4).
No worries there. If she wants to have a baby without this problem, more power to her. But she better not have any more babies after that one healthy one cause if both her and her husband are carriers, well clearly she's pushing her luck, right? Not that anyone can force her not to have more children. But again, I'm too lazy at the moment to read about just how serious cystic fibrosis is.
now in the scenario, there are 3-4 issues that have been marked, im just wondering what you guys think about the ethics of this situation. (1) should she have agreed to the test?
Seemed like it was in her best interest to have the test. Are you saying that for the baby born after the twins, that had she not tested it for cystic fibrosis then maybe she wouldn't have aborted it in the first place? So who's ethics is being called into question then? Solely the mother's? I'm confused about what you're asking here.
(2) should she have tested the unborn twins? should she have aborted the twins?
Well, twins are pretty scary as it is anyway. What, with their innate supernatural powers. Ah okay, I did some more reading. So it says it can cause in early death in patients afflicted with it, but is this what happened to her twins? Or are her twins only suffering from disabilities right now. Your information on the scenario still is a bit to vague for me to get into it that much.
(3) should she be trying to have a healthy child knowing full well that there is a chance that their next baby will have the disease?
Sure, why not? There are plenty of kids conceived of and born every day into shitty circumstances. And if the parents want to give the kid a chance to have a life for itself, go ahead and try.
(4) is it fair that she now has a healthy child and twins that have CF?
I guess you'd have to ask the twins which are probably too stupid (as children, not as patients of cystic fibrosis) to really have an opinion. I mean, how do you gauge a toddler's opinion on whether or not they like being alive despite having to live with cystic fibrosis? If that's the only life they know of anyway, maybe it's not as bad for them as someone looking at them would think. Just like people who are born blind. We pity them so much, but that's just life as a blind person knows it. Now for a person to have once had sight and then be robbed of it, that's much more sad. And why the hell does this scenario include her having twins anyway? That's strange, no?
How is (1) voluntarily agreeing to a genetic test an ethical issue?
At the root of each issue (besides from 1, I'm not sure why that's considered an issue) is an abortion issue, which rages vehemently in modern society. You could argue that it is immoral to take a life, no matter the life it will lead, or that it is immoral to allow such a life to continue when it can be "nipped at the bud."
Personally, I think people ought to be allowed to terminate their children up until the age of 9.
1. the test is not required and not routinely given to new mothers. the test reveals something that you would not otherwise know until the day of birth. i give you this analogy: if i said you could know the exact day and time you would die, would you like to know? some people will and some people will wont, that is an ethical issue.
abortion is just one issue here, but thats not the one i am concerned about. is it ethically right to do what this woman did, that is, know the outcome of a naturally random event, roll dice with a high risk/reward ratio, and then give a short life of suffering to twins while giving a full life to another baby.
Oh wait, so what happened to the twins? I know you provided a link about cystic fibrosis but could just sum up for me what a baby born with this disorder can expect within the first year of its life?
at the time setting of this particular event, the life expectancy for CF is 29 years at most. most CF babies dont make it past high school. the first years (and subsequent years until death) require constant medications and daily treatments for all sorts or disorders. mucus builds up in the lungs, digestive system does not function correctly and infections build up at alarming rates in high risk areas.
Seemed like it was in her best interest to have the test. Are you saying that for the baby born after the twins, that had she not tested it for cystic fibrosis then maybe she wouldn't have aborted it in the first place? So who's ethics is being called into question then? Solely the mother's? I'm confused about what you're asking here.
yes, the ethics of the mother/parents. knowing the outcome of the test effects her decision. but, she was tested for being a carrier, then the father out of fear, then the unborn twins. is that ethical? knowing these outcomes (first that the mother is a carrier, then the father) and altering natural process.
Well, twins are pretty scary as it is anyway. What, with their innate supernatural powers. Ah okay, I did some more reading. So it says it can cause in early death in patients afflicted with it, but is this what happened to her twins? Or are her twins only suffering from disabilities right now. Your information on the scenario still is a bit to vague for me to get into it that much.
for our sake, the twins are condemned to shorter life filled with disabilities. the parents obviously have more stress and responsibility.
I guess you'd have to ask the twins which are probably too stupid (as children, not as patients of cystic fibrosis) to really have an opinion. I mean, how do you gauge a toddler's opinion on whether or not they like being alive despite having to live with cystic fibrosis? If that's the only life they know of anyway, maybe it's not as bad for them as someone looking at them would think. Just like people who are born blind. We pity them so much, but that's just life as a blind person knows it. Now for a person to have once had sight and then be robbed of it, that's much more sad. And why the hell does this scenario include her having twins anyway? That's strange, no?
lol does it seem fair to you; imagine that you are one of the parents, do you have guilt for doing this? and now from an outsiders point of view, was it ethical to sentence the twins to a harsh life and then having a baby (knowing that there lies a chance that this baby could have CF and be aborted) that could live one fully? was it selfish?
this is a real life scenario that took place in 1993. there is a video about it that explains it much more clearly than i ever could.
the chances of them having a baby with CF are 1/4 or 25%. These genetic tests are not given routinely, as they are a question of ethics themselves.
good input guys, so far it seems that many of you are in favor of abortion, but thats just one issue here.
two schools of thought that could help you reach a conclusion: utilitarianism and Kantian thought.
thanks
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Remember the String of Ears
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
The issue is still, at its most fundamental, about abortion. The woman choosing to learn of her children's genetic code is not an issue: the issue would be, at most, an issue of confidentiality between healthcare facilities and unborn children (or perhaps genetic testing on fetuses).
Just as well, having a child that you are relatively certain will have no immediate health conditions is not an ethical issue. If you were to use that child's bone marrow, for example, to help your other child live: that then would be an ethical issue (and a popular one, at that).
I think you ought to differentiate between ethical dilemmas and what "feels dirty."
Yes. If the parents support abortion, then the information will be vital to how the rest of their lives develop. If they do not support abortion, the information will give them time to prepare for the worst.
Well this is just going to mull out into the regular abortion arguments, but personally I say yes. I see no problem in killing un-born children who aren't really self-aware. Coupled with the benefits, meaning less stressful life for the parents and less cost for society in medical treatments, I say yes.
(4) is it fair that she now has a healthy child and twins that have CF?
No one can be blamed for anything here, so it doesn't seem like a worthwhile question.
No one could have done anything to make it more fair to the twins. By the time they found out they had CF, the mother could have aborted, but in that case the twins would not have lived at all. Their life can only exist with the diease.
As for getting a healthy child after that, would it not have been much more cruel to give him CF, knowing that it could be avoided, just because the twins have it?
The issue is still, at its most fundamental, about abortion. The woman choosing to learn of her children's genetic code is not an issue: the issue would be, at most, an issue of confidentiality between healthcare facilities and unborn children (or perhaps genetic testing on fetuses).
By extension it could perhaps be seen as an issue: By using this screening process, I am supporting a technology that has the potential to allow us to tailor our children if it is allowed develop. And if people use it, it will be developed.
PlugY for Diablo II allows you to reset skills and stats, transfer items between characters in singleplayer, obtain all ladder runewords and do all Uberquests while offline. It is the only way to do all of the above. Please use it.
Supporting big shoulderpads and flashy armor since 2004.
abortion is just one issue here, but thats not the one i am concerned about. is it ethically right to do what this woman did, that is, know the outcome of a naturally random event, roll dice with a high risk/reward ratio, and then give a short life of suffering to twins while giving a full life to another baby.
What you may have here then is some type of slippery slope argument. What is the purpose of the ultrasound besides determining a baby's gender? It's also to make sure the fetus appears healthy and there are no obvious complications such as a dangerously placed umbilical cord or say, webbed toes! Now of course, the ultrasound reveals many things that can be fixed for the baby while in utero, and a test revealing that a baby had this cystic fibrosis would do nothing more than to let the parents know their baby had cystic fibrosis. It's just all the other things in between that I'd be concerned about. If it is deemed unethical for a mother to take this taste as opposed to just waiting to see if her baby is born with it, then people might be in an uproar about the other things a pregnant mother does in the meantime to determine other attributes of her baby. So I'm not saying necessarily whether the mother is being unethical by performing such a test, but I'd just be more concerned that you're even having yet another discussion about what is ethical or not for a pregnant woman to do that involves her unborn baby. Perhaps you should make a point akin to this somewhere in your paper.
at the time setting of this particular event, the life expectancy for CF is 29 years at most.
Oh, well it might be important to know more accurately what this time setting is. Cause I don't know of CF patients still live to be up to 29 years of age, or if they have improved their prognosis, and are we still assuming that if that was the current life expectancy that we are discussing how currently under today's standards we would proceed?
most CF babies dont make it past high school. the first years (and subsequent years until death) require constant medications and daily treatments for all sorts or disorders. mucus builds up in the lungs, digestive system does not function correctly and infections build up at alarming rates in high risk areas.
Again, if the parent or parents are willing to go through all this vigilant care for the child, then that's their choice. As for the quality and quantity of life for the CF patient, like I said, the CF patient knows of no other life, so it's not exactly cruel to subject them to a long life of cystic fibrosis. As for the life expectancy, well, have you any idea how many perfectly healthy people waste their lives every day anyway? Terminally ill people could probably contribute just as much as many healthy losers.
yes, the ethics of the mother/parents. knowing the outcome of the test effects her decision. but, she was tested for being a carrier, then the father out of fear, then the unborn twins. is that ethical? knowing these outcomes (first that the mother is a carrier, then the father) and altering natural process.
I think to judge anyone in these circumstances, saying whether they're ethical or not, is treading too close to eugenics than I am qualified or comfortable with anyway. I think the issue of ethics should be one between the mother and her doctor as long as the doctor doesn't violate any of his training or hippocratic oath.
for our sake, the twins are condemned to shorter life filled with disabilities. the parents obviously have more stress and responsibility.
Fair enough. Well then, did the parents educate themselves as much as possible on what they can expect with a child with CF? Did the doctor warn them adequately about the complications involved? And to what level are the parents bitching about having to take care of their CF child? At this point, I think the ethics issue of having the test done is long moot anyway.
does it seem fair to you; imagine that you are one of the parents, do you have guilt for doing this? and now from an outsiders point of view, was it ethical to sentence the twins to a harsh life and then having a baby (knowing that there lies a chance that this baby could have CF and be aborted) that could live one fully? was it selfish?
As the parent, whether I feel guilty or not is totally irrelevant. What's relevant is that I now have a kid and I'm supposed to take care of that kid. Society can generally agree that one's kid is their own responsibility. If the parent had no idea their kid was gonna have CF, then the kid is still their responsibility. If they did know, then it's even more their responsibility I suppose. As for an outsider's point of view, who the hell are they to judge those other people? And believe me, I judge people constantly on a daily basis. I love judging people! But I would not judge people in this situation because I just cannot understand fully their personal situation and feelings.
(1) Yes it is always good to have researches done to know if there are any other outside influences affecting the chance of a person having a disease. No offence but to answer (2), Noone should have an abortion. Like seriouslly the thing is alive if you think abortion is proper then killing anyone should be acceptable to you. If it is cause you can't pay the expenses or ar enot fit then give it up for adoption, do the right thing and let it live. No matter what anyone says killing is wrong! And yeah she should've tested the twins because it's always good to know how to be prepared for diseases that your child may encounter. (3) if she wants go right ahead, there is nothing wrong with bringing a diseased baby into the world so long as you can take care of it or have the fortitude to give that child up so that someone with the right resources can take care of that child. (4) it is not fair because, yeah the twins will clearly not have the same life as the normal twin but nothing in life is fair.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Not even Death will save you from Diablo Bunny's Cuteness!
so i have to write a bioethics paper in my genetics class. the situation is: a woman, who is pregnant, is asked to take a genetic test for cystic fibrosis for statistical reasons (to see how many people where carriers of the disease in northern california). she agrees (1) and finds that she is a carrier. now the father worries and he also does the test and finds out he is also a carrier of the recessive disorder. the woman is pregnant with twins that both have been tested positive for the disease (2). she decides to keep the twins. she then gets pregnant a year later; the fetus tests positive for the disease and the pregnancy is terminated (3). she gets pregnant once more and has a healthy child (4).
now in the scenario, there are 3-4 issues that have been marked, im just wondering what you guys think about the ethics of this situation. (1) should she have agreed to the test? (2) should she have tested the unborn twins? should she have aborted the twins? (3) should she be trying to have a healthy child knowing full well that there is a chance that their next baby will have the disease? (4) is it fair that she now has a healthy child and twins that have CF?
just some thoughts. lol dont worry, i wont be using your work in my paper.
A genetic test always carries a risk of a miscarriage, so that's 1 problem. Be it amniocentesis, CVS, or whatever, there's always a chance of miscarriage.
She should have terminated when she was carrying the twins because their lives would be terrible. Constant infections, constant suffering, she'd be doing them a favor. You would have to consider the dilemma that the parents are going through. They want children, like most parents. They are carriers of a recessive trait, meaning that there's a 1 in 4 chance that their progeny would be a homozygous recessive for the CF trait. If I were the father, I'd be willing to take that risk, and terminate if the child had CF. 1 in 4 is quite a significant ratio, but I want a child.
The third child was terminated possibly because they saw what CF did to the twins, and decided that they didn't want their third child to suffer. It's their fault for not researching the disease, weighing the pros and cons of having a child with CF, and just had twins with the disease. Dumb on their part, I'd say.
Of course she should have done the test..it's a serious illness. She should have aborted the twins, purely for their sake. She could try to conceive knowing the risk of the situation, because you have to take into consideration the problem that the parents are facing. They want a child, but there's a 1 in 4 chance that that child would have a dangerous illness..that alone could be devastating. Is it fair that they have affected twins and an unaffected child? Ask God.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Rise and rise again, until lambs become lions
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
now in the scenario, there are 3-4 issues that have been marked, im just wondering what you guys think about the ethics of this situation. (1) should she have agreed to the test? (2) should she have tested the unborn twins? should she have aborted the twins? (3) should she be trying to have a healthy child knowing full well that there is a chance that their next baby will have the disease? (4) is it fair that she now has a healthy child and twins that have CF?
just some thoughts. lol dont worry, i wont be using your work in my paper.
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
(2) regards an issue of freedom of choice. You could either argue that the woman reserves the right to birth children, no matter how ugly or painful their lives will be. They may end up living happy lives. You could also argue that, in such a circumstance, it is cruel and unusual to allow such a child to exist, because their life will obviously be fucked up.
(3) is also an issue of choice.
(4) again, same thing.
At the root of each issue (besides from 1, I'm not sure why that's considered an issue) is an abortion issue, which rages vehemently in modern society. You could argue that it is immoral to take a life, no matter the life it will lead, or that it is immoral to allow such a life to continue when it can be "nipped at the bud."
Personally, I think people ought to be allowed to terminate their children up until the age of 9.
Anyway, let's go through this point by point.
(1&2) I think testing yourself and the foetus(es) is a good practice. If you first test you and your partner you have some insight if your child might have Cystic Fibrosis. Testing the foetuses themselves might be a bit more stressful, but when both parents are carriers it's probably the right thing to do.
I would have advised an abortion if I were them. Cystic Fibrosis is a terrible disease where your body is slowly disintegrating, and I wouldn't wish that to anybody.
(3) Now this is the hardest point of it all. Knowing that your child has a one in four chance of having CF is a disheartening prospect, but having no children of your own might not be what you want. If you don't mind adopting children then I would encourage to do that. The other option is that you continue to have children and abort any who have the hereditary disease.
(4) Now I can't really call this a matter of fairness, since it's all statistics. It sucks that the odds weren't in your favour, but nobody could control those odds so there's no fairness involved. It is a terrible situation though.
Join the chat!
No worries there. If she wants to have a baby without this problem, more power to her. But she better not have any more babies after that one healthy one cause if both her and her husband are carriers, well clearly she's pushing her luck, right? Not that anyone can force her not to have more children. But again, I'm too lazy at the moment to read about just how serious cystic fibrosis is.
Seemed like it was in her best interest to have the test. Are you saying that for the baby born after the twins, that had she not tested it for cystic fibrosis then maybe she wouldn't have aborted it in the first place? So who's ethics is being called into question then? Solely the mother's? I'm confused about what you're asking here.
Well, twins are pretty scary as it is anyway. What, with their innate supernatural powers. Ah okay, I did some more reading. So it says it can cause in early death in patients afflicted with it, but is this what happened to her twins? Or are her twins only suffering from disabilities right now. Your information on the scenario still is a bit to vague for me to get into it that much.
Sure, why not? There are plenty of kids conceived of and born every day into shitty circumstances. And if the parents want to give the kid a chance to have a life for itself, go ahead and try.
I guess you'd have to ask the twins which are probably too stupid (as children, not as patients of cystic fibrosis) to really have an opinion. I mean, how do you gauge a toddler's opinion on whether or not they like being alive despite having to live with cystic fibrosis? If that's the only life they know of anyway, maybe it's not as bad for them as someone looking at them would think. Just like people who are born blind. We pity them so much, but that's just life as a blind person knows it. Now for a person to have once had sight and then be robbed of it, that's much more sad. And why the hell does this scenario include her having twins anyway? That's strange, no?
Good cause I will sue your sorry ass if you even paraphrase me with full blown citation.
Siaynoq's Playthroughs
abortion is just one issue here, but thats not the one i am concerned about. is it ethically right to do what this woman did, that is, know the outcome of a naturally random event, roll dice with a high risk/reward ratio, and then give a short life of suffering to twins while giving a full life to another baby.
at the time setting of this particular event, the life expectancy for CF is 29 years at most. most CF babies dont make it past high school. the first years (and subsequent years until death) require constant medications and daily treatments for all sorts or disorders. mucus builds up in the lungs, digestive system does not function correctly and infections build up at alarming rates in high risk areas.
yes, the ethics of the mother/parents. knowing the outcome of the test effects her decision. but, she was tested for being a carrier, then the father out of fear, then the unborn twins. is that ethical? knowing these outcomes (first that the mother is a carrier, then the father) and altering natural process.
for our sake, the twins are condemned to shorter life filled with disabilities. the parents obviously have more stress and responsibility.
lol does it seem fair to you; imagine that you are one of the parents, do you have guilt for doing this? and now from an outsiders point of view, was it ethical to sentence the twins to a harsh life and then having a baby (knowing that there lies a chance that this baby could have CF and be aborted) that could live one fully? was it selfish?
this is a real life scenario that took place in 1993. there is a video about it that explains it much more clearly than i ever could.
the chances of them having a baby with CF are 1/4 or 25%. These genetic tests are not given routinely, as they are a question of ethics themselves.
good input guys, so far it seems that many of you are in favor of abortion, but thats just one issue here.
two schools of thought that could help you reach a conclusion: utilitarianism and Kantian thought.
thanks
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
Just as well, having a child that you are relatively certain will have no immediate health conditions is not an ethical issue. If you were to use that child's bone marrow, for example, to help your other child live: that then would be an ethical issue (and a popular one, at that).
I think you ought to differentiate between ethical dilemmas and what "feels dirty."
Same as above. If you test yourself, of course it makes little sense not to test the eventual kids as well.
Well this is just going to mull out into the regular abortion arguments, but personally I say yes. I see no problem in killing un-born children who aren't really self-aware. Coupled with the benefits, meaning less stressful life for the parents and less cost for society in medical treatments, I say yes.
Or, she could use preimplantation genetic diagnosis.
No one can be blamed for anything here, so it doesn't seem like a worthwhile question.
No one could have done anything to make it more fair to the twins. By the time they found out they had CF, the mother could have aborted, but in that case the twins would not have lived at all. Their life can only exist with the diease.
As for getting a healthy child after that, would it not have been much more cruel to give him CF, knowing that it could be avoided, just because the twins have it?
By extension it could perhaps be seen as an issue: By using this screening process, I am supporting a technology that has the potential to allow us to tailor our children if it is allowed develop. And if people use it, it will be developed.
Oh, well it might be important to know more accurately what this time setting is. Cause I don't know of CF patients still live to be up to 29 years of age, or if they have improved their prognosis, and are we still assuming that if that was the current life expectancy that we are discussing how currently under today's standards we would proceed?
Again, if the parent or parents are willing to go through all this vigilant care for the child, then that's their choice. As for the quality and quantity of life for the CF patient, like I said, the CF patient knows of no other life, so it's not exactly cruel to subject them to a long life of cystic fibrosis. As for the life expectancy, well, have you any idea how many perfectly healthy people waste their lives every day anyway? Terminally ill people could probably contribute just as much as many healthy losers.
I think to judge anyone in these circumstances, saying whether they're ethical or not, is treading too close to eugenics than I am qualified or comfortable with anyway. I think the issue of ethics should be one between the mother and her doctor as long as the doctor doesn't violate any of his training or hippocratic oath.
Fair enough. Well then, did the parents educate themselves as much as possible on what they can expect with a child with CF? Did the doctor warn them adequately about the complications involved? And to what level are the parents bitching about having to take care of their CF child? At this point, I think the ethics issue of having the test done is long moot anyway.
As the parent, whether I feel guilty or not is totally irrelevant. What's relevant is that I now have a kid and I'm supposed to take care of that kid. Society can generally agree that one's kid is their own responsibility. If the parent had no idea their kid was gonna have CF, then the kid is still their responsibility. If they did know, then it's even more their responsibility I suppose. As for an outsider's point of view, who the hell are they to judge those other people? And believe me, I judge people constantly on a daily basis. I love judging people! But I would not judge people in this situation because I just cannot understand fully their personal situation and feelings.
Siaynoq's Playthroughs
A genetic test always carries a risk of a miscarriage, so that's 1 problem. Be it amniocentesis, CVS, or whatever, there's always a chance of miscarriage.
She should have terminated when she was carrying the twins because their lives would be terrible. Constant infections, constant suffering, she'd be doing them a favor. You would have to consider the dilemma that the parents are going through. They want children, like most parents. They are carriers of a recessive trait, meaning that there's a 1 in 4 chance that their progeny would be a homozygous recessive for the CF trait. If I were the father, I'd be willing to take that risk, and terminate if the child had CF. 1 in 4 is quite a significant ratio, but I want a child.
The third child was terminated possibly because they saw what CF did to the twins, and decided that they didn't want their third child to suffer. It's their fault for not researching the disease, weighing the pros and cons of having a child with CF, and just had twins with the disease. Dumb on their part, I'd say.
Of course she should have done the test..it's a serious illness. She should have aborted the twins, purely for their sake. She could try to conceive knowing the risk of the situation, because you have to take into consideration the problem that the parents are facing. They want a child, but there's a 1 in 4 chance that that child would have a dangerous illness..that alone could be devastating. Is it fair that they have affected twins and an unaffected child? Ask God.
Rise and rise again, until lambs become lions