The interested parties Essay
The interested parties
This paper will discuss who should decide on gender reclassification and whether or not the baby should be allowed to reach puberty or age of consent and decide about reclassification. It will also discuss whether age should be a factor in permitting/parenthood. Since John and Jane have decided they no longer want the baby then it would be left up to Gina to decide on the gender reclassification if she decides to have the baby for herself. By law she would have autonomy of the baby as long as she is acting in the best interest or well being of the baby.
The interested parties, should the baby be allowed to reach puberty or age of consent are Gina and the baby because John and Jane no longer want the baby, therefore, they would no longer have an interest in the gender reclassification age of the baby. Gina’s interests are to have a healthy baby and do what is right for the baby. The baby’s interests are to grow up a healthy kid and be treated as every other kid without worry about what gender it is. One would use the utilitarianism theory to justify the decision of not waiting until puberty or age of consent for gender reclassification.
The Non malfeasance principle is, above all “do no harm”. According to Dr. Durso, Barb, most children sense their gender identity by 18 to 30 months. This is when girls realize that they will not grow a penis and become a man and boys will realize that their penis will not fall off and become a woman. She goes on to say that during this same period both genders learn their stereotypical behavior. By allowing a baby to reach the age of consent, ultimately it would affect their behavior and personal growth in what gender they are. This would cause confusion and severe psychological harm to the baby.
By having the parent choose to have the reclassification done at a young age, would allow the child to grow into the gender just as every other child does and prevent confusion and emotional distress on the baby, thus, preventing any psychological harm to the baby! The Beneficence principle is seeking the well being or benefit of the patient. By allowing the baby to reach the consensual age one wouldn’t be looking out for the well being of the baby. The baby would grow up not knowing what sex it is and this would put the baby in an awkward position.
Some of the questions that would constantly haunt the baby would be what restroom or locker room do I use? Do I play for the girl’s team or the boy’s team? How do I dress, can I wear a dress? This would cause severe anxiety and psychological harm to the baby. The baby would feel out of place and would feel separated from society. By having the gender reclassification done as an infant the baby would grow up knowing what sex it is and wouldn’t be faced with these difficult decisions on a daily bases. This would allow the baby to grow up as a healthy child and be treated as every other kid which is a right for the baby.
One would say no to permitting age to be factor for pregnancy/parenthood via A. R. T. First of all, it would be against the law according to the Bill of Rights, Amendment IX, which states “the enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be constructed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”. This is basically saying if you allow others the right to pregnancy/parenthood by A. R. T then you can’t deny the rest which would include age as well. Secondly, it would be age discrimination if anyone tried to apply this law and we have age discrimination laws already in effect to stop this.
So as one could see it would be unlawful to deny pregnancy/parenthood via A. R. T. based on age. This paper discussed who should decide on gender reclassification and whether or not the baby should be allowed to reach puberty or age of consent and decide about reclassification. It also discussed whether age should be a factor in permitting/parenthood. Dr. Durso, Barb, http://www. keepkidshealthy. com/development/gender_identity. html Bellieni, C. and Buonocore, G. (2006). ASSISTED PROCREATION: TOO LITTLE CONSIDERATION FOR THE BABIES? Ethics and Medicine 22 (2), pg. 93. Retrieved on November 17, 2007 from Proquest.
Chervenak, F. A. and McCullough, L. B. (2003). The Cornell University Experience. Fetal Diagnosis and Therapy 18 (4); 217. Retrieved on November 17, 2007 from Proquest. Duin, J. (1999, July). Reckless reproduction? Insight on the News 15 (26), 41. Retrieved on November 17, 2007 from Proquest. Haederle, M. (1999, January). Going too far? People Weekly 51 (2), 101. Retrieved on November 17, 2007 from Proquest. Rossiter, K. & Diehl, S. (1998, Jan/Feb). Gender reassignment in children: Ethical conflicts in surrogate decision making. Pediatric Nursing 24 (1), 59. Retrieved on November 17, 2007 from Proquest.