Families might have eight plus children only for the benefits of welfare. Our class had an elongated discussion about a woman named Natalie Suleman. She is prominently known as “Octomom”. Octomom was famous for giving birth to eight children at one time. It was later discovered that her doctor and she schemed the eight child pregnancy. Octomom was eventually sued for welfare fraud; so many might say her fame ended quickly. Octomom was only one example of what could happen with a fertility drug comparable to Swenson’s.In 2000, 2,738,475 families were on public assistance in the United States. This number, in 2012, increased dramatically to 3,341,535 families. If the numbers are already increasing without a fertility drug related to Swenson’s, then her drug being introduced would not generate too colossal of a deal. Wistfully, individuals will abuse the system with or without drugs like Swenson’s. Nevertheless, if a drug comparable to Swenson’s should be acquired if it became possible, for the sake of the couples in need of a …show more content…
If the drugs were unethical then they would not be available to women in America. In the book, Swenson’s method of obtaining the drug was unethical. If the drug was tested the right way, for example, with clinical trials, then the drug would be completely ethical. One preeminent issue was that the fertility drug would cause addiction for the rest of the woman 's life. On the other hand, if the couple truly desired a child, they could attend therapy and addiction therapy sessions. The key point is that the couple would have a child. Most of the fertility treatments that woman can have are painful. That is unethical; for a woman to conceive, she has to go through pain. Swenson’s fertility drug would be painless and guaranteed conception. The way that a drug is found should not determine if it can be used or not. To summarize, a fertility drug that causes addiction for a lifetime, but aides in conception are ethical. Addictions can be fixed, but infertility cannot be fixed so