A new blockbuster: sperm donor reality TV?
by Michael Cook | 15 Sep 2019 |
Shipmates: another chapter in Channel 4's bioethical research
Wanted: a bioethics consultant for Channel 4 in the United Kingdom. According to a report in The Sun, a bottomless wellspring of bioethics stories, Channel 4’s marketing boffins are considering a reality show based on sperm donation.
The idea is that women keen to have a bub, but not a hubby, can choose their own sperm donor from a line-up of candidates. A panel will help the would-be mothers to select the most suitable one. An “inside” source at Channel 4 explained the profoundly ethical thought process which the show exemplifies:
“This is a show which explores women who want to take complete control of their own fertility and what sort of family they want to create. And obviously the concept is one which will be challenging to viewers as it will not be seen as a traditional way to have children.“But the reality is that, as things stand, women can already go through a similar process, particularly with the growth of online services that involve anonymous donors. So the idea is to examine that journey, how it can be improved and how, with more information about potential dads, they might make better decisions.”
All going well, the future parents will meet to consider joint parenting, and possibly a romantic relationship. However, according to The Sun, “Channel 4 is keen to stress it is not a dating show for people looking for love”.
Any advice from our readers to Channel 4 about how to handle some of the bioethical issues? How about an explanation for a child of who his father is and how he was conceived?
Michael Cook is editor of BioEdge
Conscientious objection to procedures like abortion and euthanasia often features in BioEdge. There is a growing consensus that CO has no place in modern medicine. It’s often argued nowadays that a doctor’s duty is to carry out the wishes of patients, regardless of whether they agree with them or not.
I stumbled across an interesting hypothetical on the American Medical Association Journal of Ethics which makes me question this consensus. In it, three bioethicists analyse a situation involving a difficult patient with deep Christian convictions. He is refusing post-operative pain medication because he believes that he needs to suffer in order to atone for his life as an alcoholic. What should the physician do?
The bioethicists conclude that he should neither acquiesce nor refer the patient to another doctor who will acquiesce. Instead, the physician should “refuse to offer this course of action, regardless of the religious rationale for such a request”.
They go on to assert that “Indeed, as part of their professional commitment to the patient’s health, physicians have some obligation to respectfully challenge patients' refusals of medical care that the physician believes is needed. A sincere discussion—even a respectful debate—in no way denigrates [his] religious beliefs.”
Indeed, this makes good sense. But, viewed from another angle, the bioethicists are advising the physician to conscientiously object to a course of action determined by a lucid patient after serious consideration. They even counsel him to argue (respectfully) with the patient to convince him that he is wrong.
If this is so obviously the case, why is it wrong for a doctor to refuse to perform an abortion? I’m having trouble reconciling the ethical reasoning of the two situations. Can anyone help?
I stumbled across an interesting hypothetical on the American Medical Association Journal of Ethics which makes me question this consensus. In it, three bioethicists analyse a situation involving a difficult patient with deep Christian convictions. He is refusing post-operative pain medication because he believes that he needs to suffer in order to atone for his life as an alcoholic. What should the physician do?
The bioethicists conclude that he should neither acquiesce nor refer the patient to another doctor who will acquiesce. Instead, the physician should “refuse to offer this course of action, regardless of the religious rationale for such a request”.
They go on to assert that “Indeed, as part of their professional commitment to the patient’s health, physicians have some obligation to respectfully challenge patients' refusals of medical care that the physician believes is needed. A sincere discussion—even a respectful debate—in no way denigrates [his] religious beliefs.”
Indeed, this makes good sense. But, viewed from another angle, the bioethicists are advising the physician to conscientiously object to a course of action determined by a lucid patient after serious consideration. They even counsel him to argue (respectfully) with the patient to convince him that he is wrong.
If this is so obviously the case, why is it wrong for a doctor to refuse to perform an abortion? I’m having trouble reconciling the ethical reasoning of the two situations. Can anyone help?
 Michael Cook Editor BioEdge |  |  |  |
NEWS THIS WEEK
by Michael Cook | Sep 15, 2019
Patients no longer need to be terminally illby Michael Cook | Sep 15, 2019
The first in the history of the controversial law to trigger criminal chargesby Michael Cook | Sep 15, 2019
‘The ethics of medicine is internal to the profession’by Michael Cook | Sep 15, 2019
Medicine has its own rulesby Michael Cook | Sep 15, 2019
Caucasian New Jersey couple have child with Asian featuresby Michael Cook | Sep 15, 2019
‘It’s uncanny how much it is like a human embryo’by Michael Cook | Sep 15, 2019
A leading bioethicist reflects upon his lifespanby Michael Cook | Sep 15, 2019
Could be coming to Channel 4 in the UK BioEdge
Level 1, 488 Botany Road, Alexandria NSW 2015 Australia
Phone: +61 2 8005 8605
Mobile: 0422-691-615
.png)
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario