Wrapped up in a Bow

[DCJenn]

OK, gang, here it is, the ethics question that will stump the ages and I'm very curious to see where this goes.

So, (I will not be using identifying information here because this is a real life situation) in one of the branches of the Armed Services, there is a family. This family discovered that their second child had a very serious genetic disorder that essentially meant that this child would have a very painful childhood with lots of medical treatments and procedures and if they were very lucky, would live to adulthood.

Because this family is part of the miltary, all of their medications and expenses are covered. This family is very religious and stated to all that it was "God's Will" that they have as many children as possible. So they had seven. FIVE of the children have this horrible disease for which there is no cure. Each child's medication costs approximately $1500/mo. The other two healthy children are also expected to pitch in with the care of their sick siblings. and the sick children require intensive health interventions and home nursing care frequently.

So...does a family have the 'right' to have as many children as possible, even though it's likely that they will have very sick children who will suffer greatly and not live past 25? Do we as tax payers have a 'right' to say "I'm not paying for it". At what point does society step in or does society have a responsibility to the 'greater good'. And what is the Greater Good here, anyway. Whose responsibility is the care and feeding of extremely sick children. and are the parents more or less obligated to the healthy children. and I could come up with about 50 more questions but I'll stop for now.

Ok- there it is- wrapped up in a big red bow from me to my iMSN peeps.

Have fun!

Jenn

[Auspicious]

Short answer:

--The parents are behaving unethically (or at least I don't agree with their ethics) in condemning more and more children to all that pain.

--Society should definitely not intervene to prevent them from having further children, because reproductive choice means that people get to decide for themselves to bear or not bear children. It's not society's place to dictate to someone that they can't or that they have to do it.

--We still have to pay for the treatment, because how would we decide who to pay for and who not to? We can't really put a max on the number of disabilities a family is allowed to have, or how severe, or whose disability is worth treating, etc. Plus you would be penalizing the kids for the parents' choices.

So without knowing this family or what the disorder is or extenuating circumstances, and just treating this as a hypothetical, generic situation, I would say that the parents are unethical, but they have everyone over a barrel, because there's no ethical way to stop them.

Keep in mind, that I have never been faced with a complicated pregnancy (or any pregnancy, for that matter), so whatever I say should be taken with a grain of salt.

As a proponent of freedom of choice, I'd say that this is an intensely personal and difficult choice that I would support with my tax dollars no matter what the outcome.

Personally, I think it's inhumane to put one child through a life of certain pain, and irrisponsible to do that to five children knowing the genetic risks. I also don't feel like it's my responsibility to populate the earth (eeegads, what a thought), I would sooner adopt a child with this kind of an affliction than give birth to one.

As for the responsibility, as long as there is freedom of choice, either both options or neither should be funded by tax dollars.

[Auspicious]

Hmm, I said "unethical" but that's really the wrong term, since this family has a system of ethics that they are applying. It's just that I think their system of ethics is harmful.

[mommax3]

I agree with Julie (*both* posts ). I don't agree with this family's choices, but since no one has appointed me God (the last time I checked, anyway ) I don't get to decide FOR these people. Starting to regulate this kind of thing is a slippery slope, and it is definitely not something I want the gov't in charge of. Our taxes already pay for a lot of stuff that we as individuals don't agree with, but I don't think that becoming a government employee (or recipient of gov't aid of any kind) should require that people give up their personal freedoms and instead have to adhere to a certain "approved" code of behavior.

Sally

[Vishenka69]

I agree with Julie as well but also want to add that some religious communities take genetic conditions seriously and I hope others will become just as responsible. Orthodox Jews from Eastern European background almost always get tested for genetic disorders prior to getting married. If both sides end up being carriers, they look for other partners. Many deeply religious people marry within their own community, so the chances of genetic disorder in children is much higher. If more community and religious leaders got behind genetic testing for all engaged couples, the problem would at least be someone curbed.

[Meenah]

I'll bet if they were paying for their own healthcare they would stop purposely producing children with almost guaranteed catastophic health issues.

I agree w/most everyone! No way to truly stop it. Inherently cruel to continue producing children with such a high probabilty of having such a painful disease. If they were responsible to pay for the care themselves, they probably wouldn't have continued.

As for the genetic testing -- I agree with Vishenka that it is wise to have done for at-risk communitites. The problem will arise though, that if an insurance company knows you've had testing, and your offspring might be likely to have a disease the insurance company might be able to refuse to cover the disease.

[SueC]

I agree with everybody else. I feel sorry for those kids (the ones suffering with the condition as well as the "normal" ones whose childhood will be spent caring for them), but I don't see how anybody could keep them from having more, or paying for it since they are military.

[planet]

I’m going to approach this from different side and as always from personal experience first. I know a guy from my hometown who has severe Cerebral Palsy. He has a loving family, but a horrible physical handicap. He is wheelchair bound, a triplegic and cannot attend to his own sanitary needs. He is also a university grad, works with computers with the help of special adaptations to his home PC. He has a brother who also has CP, but is handicapped to a much lesser physical extent and a much greater mental/emotional extent. Both boys went to college. The more severely disfigured one is a university grad (my alma mater). He has told me, with hard to understand speech, that he is grateful to have been born at a time when the technology exists to allow him to both survive and thrive.

My concern is more whether these parents love their children and advocate and provide for them the best that they can. They are a military family. They have already put military service first and taken the risk of losing a parent. This is a family not averse to risk. To address another aspect: I know puh-lenty of abusers of health insurance. I have my opinions, but would never decide who will have kids. Out of the grimmest circumstance come unlikely heroes sometimes. Helen Keller? Is physical pain and suffering always worse than life in the ghetto? I also believe in the soul and don’t know how a soul and body are connected. My .02

[Laker]

What about those weird families that have 19 kids and are on welfare and have to install an industrial kitchen? I think that those people should be cut off. Why should I have to pay for them to sit around and make copies of themselves? Are they that great that they need to have more than say 4-5 kids? I am all for a limit of children and if you choose to exceed that limit, then you are totally responsible to pay for them. Sure reproduction is a privacy issue, as long as you can provide for you own. If not, then you become a drain on society... The govt. isn't in the business of employing babymakers. I am not saying the typical 3-5 kids, but more than 5 is way too excessive IMO. If you can afford to provide for them, more power to you. If you can't, use contraception or abstinance.

[Auspicious]

I agree, we should put an end to the rampant abuse of industrial kitchens by welfare families.

[rainbabies]

Laker....if you're referring to the Duggar family--with 17 kids they are not on welfare. They are TOTALLY debt free....and I love their industrial sized kitchen.

[Tenacious_D]

How in the world do the Duggar parents find time to have "relations" with all those children in the house?!?!?!