The Ethical Argument Surrounding Assisted Reproductive Technology ART †Ethics Essay

The Ethical Argument Surrounding Assisted Reproductive Technology ART – Ethics Essay Free Online Research Papers The Ethical Argument Surrounding Assisted Reproductive Technology ART Ethics Essay Prompt: Assisted Reproductive Technology is an issue with many facets that tend to contribute to the ethical arguments surrounding it. Three subissues in particular, including access to this technology, the definition of a parent/conflicting claims on custody, and the commodification of people, contribute to the ethical argument on ART, all in a rather negative manner. First, access to this technology seems to make ART unethical. ART is an extremely expensive procedure, ranging into the tens of thousands of dollars and up for something that may not even be successful, and this is before the baby is ever born. It is obvious that only people with access to such funds would be able to take advantage of this technology. In this case, only the very well-off would be able to have children at an advanced age or under certain physical conditions; thus, less wealthy people would not be able to have their own children. Taken to an extreme, this could be seen as a form of genetic â€Å"purification† of society, where the very wealthy are able to have more children than the less wealthy. In addition to the high cost, this technology is more available in certain geographical areas, including the U.S. West Coast and Northeast and Western Europe. Even if they could afford it, people in Africa, Asia, or South America would have to fly somewhere else t o obtain access to ART. Again, taken to the extreme, this could be seen as a â€Å"purification† of the human race, with people in the U.S. and Europe having more ready access to this technology and thus more able to take advantage of it. While Stock and Fuykuyama argue over government regulation of this technology in the text, it seems that the more important issue is the fact that access to this technology is limited to very wealthy individuals who tend to live in the U.S. and Europe. Secondly, ART seems to change the definition of a parent, making custody battles – already a difficult topic – even more complicated, and further adding to the argument that ART is not necessarily ethical. As we see in the case with the triplets, parenthood in ART is a complicated affair because you have several sets of contributors to these children’s lives: the donor mother and/or father, the intending mother/father, and/or the surrogate mother all can feel that they have the rights to these children. First, the donor mother and/or father are the genetic parents; they can feel a genetic connection with those children who may look or act just like them. The court just ruled that even these people, who signed a contract to sell their eggs or sperm to an ART company, have rights over the children, and granted custody of those triplets to the egg-donor mother. Then there are the intending mother and/or father. They are the people who are spending all this mon ey to have these children; these are the ones who say they will take care of these children and raise them as their own. But are they their own? The courts have ruled in the father’s favor in this case, but then it was reversed. Do intending parents have just as much right to the children as the biological parents? Finally there is the surrogate mother, who formed connections with these children for nine months as she carried them around. Would a surrogate not be informed that she may develop feelings for these children as she carried them? It would seem that this business would take into account the fact that a pregnant woman more often than not forms connections with the unborn children that intending and biological parents cannot otherwise make. And unless that woman is willing to completely give up her claim on the children and cut all emotional ties to them, it would seem that putting a woman through that emotional pain would be unethical. Thus, judging from the issues surrounding the definition of a parent, ART seems to be an unethical practice. Finally, the issue of the commodification of people is a more cloudy subissue for ART; it could be argued in two ways. First, from the very beginning, when a woman decides to donate her eggs or a man his sperm, some people can argue that we are buying and selling human beings or at the very least, the make up of humans. Should this not be akin to slavery? Slavery is wrong in the sense that we are treating people like cattle, mere commodities, like something that can be assigned a monetary value, when, in fact, are humans not more valuable than money? On the other hand, others argue against this, saying that a human is not a human until conception, and some go even further to say a human becomes a human at birth. Otherwise, would a woman not be accused of murder every time she menstruates? And what about all those sperm that men waste? We would all be in jail. I suppose the difference between these points of view is that in the first argument, we are selling our eggs or sperm in order to create human beings, whereas the second argument is a natural process, not an intentional disposal of human material. Intention, then, would be very important in this argument. Depending on which side of the intention argument you lie, the commodification of people could contribute to or detract from the ethical argument against ART. And so, ART can be argued as unethical from the points of access and parent definition, while it can be supported as ethical or unethical from the issue of commodification. Research Papers on The Ethical Argument Surrounding Assisted Reproductive Technology ART - Ethics EssayComparison: Letter from Birmingham and CritoGenetic EngineeringArguments for Physician-Assisted Suicide (PAS)Personal Experience with Teen PregnancyThe Effects of Illegal ImmigrationInfluences of Socio-Economic Status of Married MalesEffects of Television Violence on ChildrenThe Project Managment Office SystemPETSTEL analysis of India19 Century Society: A Deeply Divided Era

Cheating Behavior and Students Morality

Cheating Behavior and Students Morality Cheating is a widespread, increasing in its prevalence, and perhaps the most unpleasant aspects of teaching and learning. The result of the study in higher education suggests that cheating only occurs if there is an opportunity to cheat and it is possible for teachers to eliminate cheating without creating a scandal. Hashtag: #YgsKopyaSkandal? (YGS Cheating Scandal) Cheating Behavior and Students’ Morality Kohlberg’s model of moral reasoning suggests that motivation for learning change from childhood to adulthood thus those with higher levels of moral reason cheat less. However, study shows that students level of moral reasoning were not associated with cheating. In fact, students with low-level moral reasoning tend to obey school authority thus normally do not cheat while older students with higher levels of moral reasoning often rationalize cheating as situational demands. LEARNING MORAL VALUES IN COLLEGE MOVIES Results of studies on cheating behavior suggest that external factors have a greater influence on older students cheating behavior than internal factors or perception of right and wrong. Moreover, although many college students do perceive cheating as wrong, most of them believed that such act is a normal  part of life and plainly accept cheating a part of their college experience. However, close monitoring tends to thwart cheating in older students with more mature reasoning. Similarly, smaller class size appears to discourage cheating while students with clear knowledge of what constitute cheating usually are not involved in such immoral act. For instance, study shows that students who willingly provided test answers to peers are mostly unaware that it was cheating. Environmental factors such as teacher intervention can greatly reduce the occurrence of cheating and avoid dramatic cheating scandal similar to #YgsKopyaSkandal? For instance, large universities tend to respond to student cheating by instigating scandalous actions rather than protecting the interest of parents and students and preserving academic integrity through prevention and classroom reforms. For instance, directly teaching students of what constitutes cheating and greater emphasis on mastery of tasks rather than grades are beneficial classroom reforms. Preserving Academic Integrity without a  Scandal Cheating is a widespread, increasing in its prevalence, and perhaps the most unpleasant aspects of teaching and learning. The result of the study in higher education suggests that cheating only occurs if there is an opportunity to cheat and it is possible for teachers to eliminate cheating without creating a scandal. The literature has demonstrated that majority of students perceived cheating as an acceptable behavior and youths of all ages are likely to engage in some form of cheating. Cheating is an academic crime but there can be serious legal consequences if a teacher falsely accuses a student of cheating. The most effective approach a teacher can adopt therefore is to prevent cheating by establishing cheating policies and strictly enforcing them. Primarily, a teacher on the first day of class has the opportunity to state his or her position about cheating clearly and why school considers such act as a crime. It is also helpful to explain its consequence using relevant situations such as the fact that since many of them will be competing with other people for jobs in the near future, a person who cheats and gets  illicit high grades from it is literally cheating everyone out of a job. Teaching styles that promote cheating such as grading on a curve and covering too much material on a single examination should be avoided. The reason is that students often cheat when the stakes are high and consequences are low. Moreover, research shows that likelihood of cheating is strongly linked to the quality of teacher-student relationship and students’ level of respect for the teacher.