Question

SCIENCE has a way of getting ahead of law and ethics. That happened dramatically in 1945 on the
destructive side of life with the atomic bomb and is now happening on life's creative side with
techniquesto overcome human infertility.

Most of usrejoiced with the Brown family in England when Lousie,the first test-tube baby, was born. And we
have marveledat otherfirsts –mostrecently thebirthof healthybabiesthat had once been embryosfrozento

awaitthepropermoment ofimplantation in the mother-to-be.

It is about two such frozen embryos in Australia that a storm of legal and ethical questions has arisen.The

embryos were destined to be implanted in Elsa Rios, wife of Mario Rios. A previous embryo implant had been

unsuccessful, and the Rioses wanted to have another chance at becoming parents. But before they had a
second chance to try,the Rioses perished inanairplane crash.

What was the Australian hospital to do with the frozen embryos? Could they be implanted in someone else?

There were numerous volunteers. Were the embryossomehow entitled to the Rioses'substantial estate? Or
should the embryos be destroyed? The Rioses, understandably, had made no provision for the embryos'

future.

The Australians set up a commission to study the matter. Last week, the commission made its report. The
embryos should be thawed,the panel said, because donation of embryosto someone else would require the
consent of the“producers,” and no such consent had been given. The panel also held that the embryos in their
present state had no life or rights and thus could be destroyed.

The commission members were conscious of treading on slippery legal and ethical grounds. Therefore, they

urged that three months be allowed for public opinion to respond to the commission recommendation.

Should there bean overwhelming outcry againstdestroying the embryos,the commission would reconsider.

Couples now enrolling in Sydney's Queen Victoria hospital for in-vitro fertilization programs must specify

whatshould be done with the embryos if something happen stothem.

This assuresthat a situation similarto the Rioses won'trecur. But what of other complex questions? In France,

awoman recently had to go to court to be allowed to bear a child from her deceased husband'sfrozen sperm.

How should such a request be handled? Whatshould be done if a surrogate mother breaks her child-bearing contract and refuses to give up the infant she had promised to bear for someone else?

Oursociety hasfailed so farto come up with enforceable rulesfor curbing the destructive potential of atomic

power. We are reaping the nightmarish harvest for that failure. The possibilities ofmisuse of scientists' ability
to advance orretard procreation are manifold. Ethical and legal boundaries need to be set beforewe stray too
far.



Question2.1

Underline the sentence that explains what the Australians did to help decide how to deal with the frozen
embryos belonging to a couple killed in the plane crash.

Question2.2

List two examples from the editorial that illustrate how modern technology,such asthat used forimplanting
frozen embryos, creates the need for new rules.​

Answer 1

Answer:

yes you are right because i also love science

Answer 2

Answer:

you solve it yourself because it's your teat