please read the following and answer the question below....

The Case of the Lemon Baby Introduction When this author first created this case, her students thought that she was reading too much science fiction. They thought that this situation could never happen or be profitable. Today, it is a growing field with advancements in technique and social acceptance. The newest version of the case reflects trends and future ideas about future babies. Case Information The Center for Reproductive Technology made great strides in clinical applications of genetic engineering for reproductive services. For a fee of $150,000, it could provide a baby to specs. Using the latest techniques in gene editing, and pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) and CRISPR gene editing, the Center could implant embryos with a high probability of desired traits. These embryos were also created with superior sperm from selected sperm banks. 136 Chapter 8 Technology and Ethics The Centers commitment to quality for the technology meant that potential parents identify their preferences for gender, race, eye color, hair color, potential height and weight, intelligence, athletic potential, and other variables. To qualify for this service, they also complete three interviews, including a psychological evaluation and a marriage stability profile. Parents also provided proof of their ability to pay before being allowed to place an order. They could request implantation in the future mother or the use of a surrogate. Of course, consent forms were a part of the client acceptance process and included the promise of product satisfaction. The Center made every effort to ensure the quality of the product delivered. In fact, customer satisfaction rates were 95%. Additionally, the Center maintained a high profit margin, which made it popular with its investors. The Smalleys wanted to take advantage of the services offered through the Center. Their busy practices did not allow them time for a pregnancy, so they opted for the surrogate method of delivery. The payment of $150,000 for the Centers fees and the $112,000 fee to cover the expenses for the surrogate seemed high, but they wanted the best. After all, they wanted a male child to carry on the Smalley name and the tradition of being a leader in the Black community. Dr. Herbert Smalley wanted a baby who had the potential to be a star athlete. Dr. Matilda Smalley wanted a child with high intelligence so he could graduate from Harvard University. They selected Embryo number 77, whose specifications read: 1. Black and male. 2. Guaranteed disease free, including sickle cell and muscular dystrophy. 3. 75% change of being over six feet tall. 4. 85% probability of athletic ability. 5. 90% probability of IQ of 135 or higher. The Smalleys thought that this profile fit their expectations and were looking forward to their new son. The procedures went well and their surrogate mother gave birth successfully. The problem was that the child did not fulfill their order. The Centers chief executive officer, Kit Ptolemy, received a call from Dr. Herbert Smalley, who was enraged at the lack of product quality. He paid $262,000 for a male child with traits that were guaranteed by the Center. Instead of his superior son, the surrogate gave birth to a female Caucasian child. He demanded an explanation. Mr. Ptolemy calmed him down and told him that he would investigate immediately. After checking into the situation, Mr. Ptolemy found that there had been a mix-up in the computer system. The improved embryo implanted in the surrogate mother was Embryo 97, which was for a red-haired, blue-eyed, Caucasian female with high beauty and intelligence potential, instead of Embryo 77. Embryo 77 was no longer available. Mr. Ptolemy called the Smalleys back and explained what happened. He offered to reimburse them for their fees or facilitate the implantation of their embryo selection. That is when Dr. Herbert Smalley exploded. No, he did not want anything more to do with this incompetence! He asked Mr. Ptolemy if he was expected to raise a white female child in his home. He did not want her even if she were free. Yes, he expected a full refund, including the fees for the surrogate. The next morning, he would be bringing this baby back to the Center. She would be Mr. Ptolemys problem, not his. Commentary on the Case Which principles and theories of ethics apply to this case? This case relates to many perspectives of ethics. First, examine the business ethics. The Center for Reproductive Technology invested a great deal of time and finances to develop a product that provided benefit to future parents and to the community. (continues) Summary 137 A CASE FOR ETHICS (continued) It was now possible to screen and gene edit to prevent the probability of a diagnosis of several diseases. Since the Center was also a business, it could not provide these services to everyone. Therefore, the Center believed that it was providing some social justice along with the market justice. The administrator of the Center also felt that it was meeting its business obligation to provide a quality product, as promised. It tried to prevent any unsatisfactory consequences by insisting on extensive interviews with potential parents of this product, including an assessment of their psychological and marital stability. Mr. Ptolemy considered these procedures to be part of the Centers duty for beneficence and nonmaleficence. The screening could prevent products from being placed in a home that was not stable and avoided suffering from the harm of divorce or other traumas. In addition, allowing unstable parents to access their carefully designed children could be bad for the Centers image and future business. Up until the time of the Smalley error, the Center saw itself as a thriving business with great growth potential. From a purely market justice view, the Center was an ethics-based business. It was providing a quality service to those who could afford it. However, looking beyond the business aspects reveals some serious ethics issues. First, the Center regarded its numbered embryos and full-term babies as products, not humans. This is a violation of the principle of autonomy because the Centers view did not value and respect human life. Bubers (1996) idea of moral relationships also applies here. When humans become its instead of valued individuals, they can become marketable products. The Center, through its attitude toward this technology, could be contributing to a devaluing of what it means to be a human. How do other ethics areas apply to this case? Although the Center provided a societal benefit, its policies do not comply with utilitarian ethics. The ability to provide designer children is limited only to those who are wealthy enough to afford this technology. If one believes that designer babies are a social good, then the greatest good is not provided to the greatest number; it is limited to a few. Kantians would reject this idea and say that the Center has an ethical duty to obey the categorical imperative. Apparently, its owners did not recognize the ability to have designed child should be available to all in societyonly to those who can pay for them. Of course, this position does not count for human error, which was a factor in the outcome of this Case. What ethics issues did the Smalley family face? The Smalleys certainly had the autonomy to make decisions about what they wanted their family to be. Their interest in a having a perfect child who would grow up to meet their expectations, did put their interests first. However, ethical egoism is an appropriate part of their considerations in making this social and financial decision. In their view, the services of the Center could provide them with the child that they wanted to support their view of the ideal family. They were also able to pay for a child that met that vision. Their only problem with this was that the Center did not deliver. The Centers error produced a very unacceptable producta redheaded, white, female child. The Smalleys had no desire to spend their time and money raising a child who was not the correct gender or the correct race according to them. A full refund and return of the defective product seemed fair to them. After all, their Mercedes child was really a lemon; they should be able to return her. 138 Chapter 8 Technology and Ethics This case goes beyond the Smalleys response and introduces issues about the nature of what it means to be a family. It appears that designer babies are becoming more desirable as the technology improves and the practice becomes more mainstream. Ethics questions need to be considered. For example, will there be issues about the value of designer children versus natural children? Should children be told that they were designed? Can you imagine the issues this change might create for social workers, psychologists, and counselors who will deal with the psychological impact on children who are designer and not designer? Are schools prepared to educate and accommodate super-children? Should there be separate classes for designer children so that they do not have to associate with children of lesser value? How will the nonengineered children fare in school and in society in general? Finally, how can parents and society practice the principles of nonmaleficence and justice so that all children are treated with fairness, respect, and opportunity? In the authors classes, several groups tried to grapple with what to do with the rejected productsthat is, children who were born but did not measure up to the specifications or were created because of an error. They acknowledged that the Center might have to take these children back, much like some adoption agencies do today. Therefore, they decided that they could create a spinoff business by running a discounted adoption center that would place these babies in the homes of those who wanted designer babies but could not afford them. This suggestion, while made facetiously, sparked a class debate about what would happen to designer children who did not measure up and the impact on the family and society in general.

Please read above and answer the following:

What ethics issues did the Smalley family face?

• Will there be issues about the value of designer children versus natural children?
• Should children be told that they were designed?