The argument surrounding non-lifesaving operations on children has two logical sides. Some people feel that these operations are ethically legitimate because it is in the child’s best interest to have them done. Those opposed to these operations believe that it is illegitimate because we are changing the child from who they were born as so that they can fit the superficial standards set by today’s society.
Those who believe that a procedure that enhances or allows for better functioning of a child’s body is legitimate have a few different reasons for their opinion. Though a procedure is a non-life saving operation, it will most likely better the child’s life in the future. If a child is born with a deformity and does not have any operations, they will most likely go on and live a life with some more troubles than other people. They will most likely grow up having difficulties doing daily tasks and may become self-conscious which will lead to many social issues in the future and as the child grows up he or she may not be able to function in society as well as someone who was born without a deformity. As Aristotle said, we cannot reach happiness if we are not successful and if we do not have friends. If we have the tools and the knowledge to do a procedure that would yield substantial benefits for the child in the future, then why not go through with the procedure? Why should this child suffer because of how they were born? Wouldn’t it instead be ethically illegitimate if we have the power to improve a child’s life and we do not do anything about it?
The opposite side of this argument is very understandable as well. These people believe that we are born the way we are, and that is how God intended us to be. We are each unique and each have varying amounts of imperfection, some may just have more than others. They feel that the child is too young to undergo a procedure in which they have no say in the matter and that changes them from the person they were born as. They also feel that just as it is not ethically legitimate for these procedures, it is not ethically legitimate to judge the people who were born with whatever it is that makes parents want to make a change. They feel that the problem is in society, not in how the child was born; that the pleasures associated with being “normal” are socially molded and thus not ethically legitimate. We should accept everyone as who they are and then there would not be a push for operations on children to enhance them. They also may feel that there is too much risk involved in a procedure that is not being done to save a life.
I think that one’s stance on this topic has a lot to do with today’s society vs. traditional teaching. Those people who are for the procedures think that it is legitimate because we have the knowledge and the abilities to improve a child’s life not only now, but in the future as well. Others think that it is ethically illegitimate because we are changing children from who they were born as and who they were meant to be, and most of the time it is because our society will not accept them otherwise.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
I'd have to disagree with your paragraph on why we shouldn't "enhance" children. Although many of the normalities are placed by society, there has to be an extent in which the abnormalities are just too severe to ignore. Why should people be singled out because they were born different from the rest, when there are courses of action which can be taken to normalize the child's life? And by normal I don't mean succumbing to a particular standard of beauty, I mean being able to go about life without having to carry any social stigma. I'm willing to argue that a child born with an abnormality is not reaching its full potential within the society, and we are taking potential away from the child if we allow them to remain with the abnormality. If a child is to be continuously teased and shunned because of an abnormality relating to birth there is no way anyone can say that the child's personality isn't being affected, which not only takes away from potential, but from overall happiness as well.
After leaving today's debate, it seems like the class generally agrees that enhancements are acceptable to a certain degree: that of "normalization." Most of the ideas discussed today regarding legitimate enhancements surround augmenting deficiencies in beauty and health. But we did not talk much about the benefits of enhancement for other reasons. Do we only enhance physical attributes for better health or beauty?
Could these physical enhancements lead to greater wealth? Having children? A longer life? Political power? Or would potential advancements gained in these areas through physical enhancements always primarily be attributed to "beauty?" If so, is beauty the most important external good (besides good fate)?
Undoubtedly, I agree with Julian and Caitlin on that the enhancement of a child for "normalization" purposes is ethical. Since the Aristotelian argument is not quite persuading, one must contemplate upon the standards or norms of society. Being normal is an essential aspect of child development. No child wants to be the "odd ball" amongst their classmates and such an experience can be traumatizing. Therefore, parents respond to the needs of their children by providing normalizing enhancements and make happiness more accessible to their children.
I feel that enhancements on children for reasons of normality are acceptable. Sure every one is born different, but their are things that we look at as being normal. If a child is born with out the chance of being "normal" and being accepted in society, who are we to say that we can help better that child’s life. I feel that it is our duty to do what ever it takes to help that child achieve happiness in there life. It was not their decision to be born this way, and if we can help that child then I think we should.
I am for enhancements, disregarding my position in the debate, I believe that enhancements of necessary sort are acceptable. I just don't agree with how much society and the image it expects of us influences our lives and the lives we plan for our children. It should be a personal decision, not because everyone else is doing it. Why should we try to look like everyone else?
The topic can go both ways. As someone who has undergone a normalization surgery as a child I agree that surgeries on children that will return them to normalcy or restore functionality are ethically acceptable. However, on the other side of the argument, I recently ran into an article telling of high school aged boys seeking surgery on their arms to make them faster pitchers in baseball. "Tommy John" surgery, as it is called, used to be an elbow reconstructive surgery for players who blew out their elbows from throwing. Now, perfectly healthy minors are taking years off from playing baseball in order to receive this surgery and pitch faster in the future. Does this surgery improve the child's life? Yes. But is it ethical? I personally do not think so.
I one am who would side with enhancements for I interpret the enchancements mentioned as normalization processes. If given the choice to normalize my child, be it whatever deformity they might have, I would go for it without hesitation. Why would I want my child to suffer from humiliation when I can make a difference? Society has the ability to fix these things and I believe that we should take advantage of the technologies and knowledge given to us.
To me, the only way I can see enhancements as serving an approprate cause is if they are solely intended for the child, not for any parent-driven motives. If an enhancement is necessary to normalize the child so that they may be functional/even the playing field, then I by no means have any objections. Furthermore, I view non-life threatening enhancements that, in their own way, restore this sense of normalcy (such as scolding and punishing a child) as examples of ethical behavior. Through the process of reprimandation, a child is pointed towards the right direction, albeit psychologically. However, much like a functionalizing enhancement, it is ultimately up to the youngster to understand and act up this normalizing force.
Listening to this dialogue, which is compelling, I can't help but think that we should have done more to determine what "normalcy" would be. I expect that would be a site where significant differentiation would occur.
As long as thinking of the example of the cleft palate, I think we might all agree normalcy would be good. On the other hand, although I might not include cleft palates, there is something uniquely rewarding about the experience of identifying with one's differences. And I hate to think of what would be lost were we to avoid those at all costs.
Post a Comment