Imagine a newlywed couple that has recently conceived a child. While they are delighted with the pregnancy, they have concern for the welfare of the child beyond the average worries of new parents. This is because the couple has the disease Cystic Fibrosis in their genetics. Their child has a significant percent chance of being born with the disease.

About 50 years ago, when scientific knowledge was more limited, the couple would not even know their child had a chance of being sick before it was born. However, since then rapidly evolving medical technology has allowed doctors more insight into the development of fetuses. Today the couple is able to have their child checked for CF before it is born, and they have multiple options with how to proceed with the pregnancy if the child has the disease.

The details of this scenario are more thoroughly outlined in this article.

The couple can proceed with the pregnancy and have the child, or they could choose to have an abortion.  While the idea of abortion is very controversial, my focus in analyzing this scenario is to look at the scientific ethics. These ethics revolve around using science to uncover previously unknown medical information, and make decisions using new medical technology. This idea of being in control of what was previously controlled by nature is commonly referred to as “playing God.”

Essentially, I aim to analyze the ethics of “playing God” in science and technology.

Generally opposition to playing God tends to argue that the development of new science and technology puts divine power into the hands of humans, where it is not meant to be. People argue that it interferes with the natural order of life, and leads to the creation of horrific and immoral practices such as abortion. On the other hand, supporters interpret the power of scientific control as something that can be responsibly handled by scientists to advance our society for the better. They argue that more knowledge leads to ultimately less suffering.

Returning to the couple, their situation is heavily influenced by doctors and scientists playing God. The research that allows the couple to know they have CF in their genetics is playing God. The ability of doctors to test the unborn child for CF is playing God. The decision of the couple whether to continue the pregnancy is playing God.

If we look at their situation as the opposition would prefer, without the influence of doctors playing God, the couple would not know their child had CF, and would be wholly unprepared when their child was delivered with such a disease. While some medical treatments to prolong the life of their child, it would ultimately lead a sick and sadly shortened life.

If we allow the couple all the benefits of scientific research as supporters believe they should, they are aware of the risks of conceiving a child with CF before they even become pregnant, and once they are pregnant they can find out whether their child has it before birth and be prepared to accept such a child into their household. However, this knowledge leaves them with an extremely difficult choice. Do they want to abort their child?

I see these two scenarios as trade-off alternatives on different types of hardships. The couple that doesn’t know their child is sick will have lots of stress placed upon them by receiving an unexpectedly sick child into their lives. However, the couple that is given all the information about their child also is given the burden of deciding what they should do about the pregnancy.

While the implications of this scenario are complicated enough, the issue only further expands into further complications as other scientific revelations reveal new possibilities. For example, another alternative for the couple would to have fertilized eggs analyzed for CF before implantation and selecting a healthy zygote, eliminating the question over whether the child could have CF. This artificial insemination technology raises more questions over whether children should be created artificially, with the intervention of science.

While the pace of scientific development only seems to be increasing, reflection and discussion on the ethical questions that arise with the new technology give mankind the best chance of using the technology properly and drawing borderlines where they need to be drawn.  With the purpose of stimulating some thought in this area, I will continue to blog about a variety of branches of ethical science, specifically the concept of playing God.

I intend to blog in a wider context next week, about the origins of scientific development versus spirituality and faith.