Greetings, Dr. Rossmann's psychology students! (And all others are welcome to this post as well!)
The discussion and questions below are meant to provide further context for my remarks about genetics as it relates to adoption and ART.
Introduction
Genetics has always been an issue in adoption, although not always an explicit issue. For example, some observers note that the legal process of adoption disconnects genetic parent-child bonds to create non-genetic parent-child bonds. The practice of adoption has at various historical times and geographical places intersected with genetics in various ways: sometimes creating informal family arrangements within pre-existing genetic kinship networks; at other times using the latest in developmental and behavioral science to assess the likely outcomes of adopted children; and at still other times de-emphasizing the role of genetics in favor of the power of environments.
Adoption is an ancient practice. More recent developments in another means of family formation--assisted reproductive technologies (ART)--have spurred new examinations of this longer standing practice. In particular, ART and related technologies have made genetics, once again, a key area of interest in research on and policy discussions of adoption.
Video: Pre-implantation Genetic Diagnosis
Please click here to view the video from the New York Times online. The video (less than 6 minutes long) provides a brief explanation of a particular type of reproductive technology known as pre-implantation genetic diagnosis, or PGD.
In addition to providing an easily understood description, the video touches on several points illustrating some parallels as well as divergences between methods of ART and adoption. As you view the video, think about the following points and questions:
1) Early in the video, the father mentions that the decision making around whether or not to use PGD was difficult, but that in the end "having a healthy child outweighs everything." Further, the narrator describes his daughter born via PGD as "a perfectly healthy" toddler. Did this technology really guarantee that this child will be "perfectly healthy? Is it OK for people thinking about becoming adoptive parents to also strive to only adopt "perfectly healthy" children?
2) In adoption, one issue that is frequently discussed is which children get "chosen" or who are seen as "adoptable" and which children are not. An interesting combination of groups of activists have also raised similar issues with regard to PGD and similar technologies. For example, people who are against abortion point out that to create the "perfectly healthy" embryo to be implanted, other embryos that are created in the process may be destroyed. Some in the disability rights community have objected to such practices because of the fear that they change the way we view "normal" and what is considered to be an acceptable range of human illness, functioning, and capacity.
3) Another area where adoption overlaps with ART involves isues of cost and access. However, many adoption advocates note that it is increasingly the case that couples and individuals are paying much more money to use services such as PGD than they would have spent by adopting, especially adopting from the foster care system. What reasons can you think of for people choosing to build their families through methods of ART rather than adoption?
Family and Individual Psychology
All of these (and many more) questions have both ethical and psychological components. At the core of these questions, for me, is this one:
What is the importance of genetics for people in the context of their family lives?
In other words, I am interested in my work in trying to figure out how genetics "plays out" in how people think of themselves; how they function as members of families, communities, and racial/ethnic groups; and what decisions they make in areas as diverse as health care and educational attainment.
Posted by perry032 at November 26, 2006 03:50 PM