Karen Caputo gave birth to twins through in vitro fertilization ...

[Marty]

Karen Caputo gave birth to twins through in vitro fertilization using the frozen sperm of her late
  husband, who had died of cancer eighteen months earlier. She applied for Social Security
  survivors benefits for the twins, as her late husband had worked in Social Security employment
  during his lifetime.

 
  What will be an ideal response?

Question 2

Beginning in the 1920s, over 30 states in the U.S. practiced eugenics, that is, sterilizing
  persons the government considered undesireable, because they were mentally disabled, poor,
  or otherwise unfit or unable to raise children. The practice continued in some states into the
  1970s. In the state of North Carolina, an effort was made to get the state legislature to
  compensate these victims with payments of up to 50,000 in recognition of the wrong done to
  them. Although the Governor and the House of Representatives supported the program, it was
  never passed into law.

 
  What will be an ideal response?

[Rilsmarie951]

Answer to Question 1

1. The Social Security Administration denied the benefits, as did the first court hearing the
case and, eventually, n 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court. They argued that children
conceived posthumously, as here, could not inherit from the late father under that state's
law and the father had not provided for them economically during his lifetime. Thus they
also could not claim benefits from Social Security. Does this seem like an ethically
correct conclusion to you, given that the father had worked to earn Social Security
benefits during his lifetime and, presumably, had consented to use of his sperm after his
death? Should these children have any rights that are relevant in your considerations?
2. If the Supreme Court had reached a different conclusion and awarded the benefits to
these twins, would you anticipate future problems in this approach to awarding benefits
to children conceived through IVF? How should such children be provided for?

Answer to Question 2

1. Critics of the law worried about the total cost of the program, estimated at 90 million if
all the living victims came forward. Consider how the state should respond ethically to
these victims and with what justification.
2. Some critics also worried that it would set a precedent for reparations for victims of
slavery and other state action now recognized as wrong. Are these concerns sufficient to
justify refusing to pay the eugenics victims? What other wrongs deserve compensation
now? How could we ethically distinguish those wrongs which deserve payment and
those which do not?
3. Research credible sources on your own state's history to determine if eugenics was
practiced by your state government. Then try to determine whether any efforts have
been made to obtain compensation for the victims of eugenics. Consider the ethical
arguments presented on both sides.

[Marty]

Thank you!

[Rilsmarie951]

Happy to help