You mean, administering treatment to cure a defect or disease is now a problem?
depends on how the drug is administered, I suppose. the article seems to claim that it is being touted, and perhaps advised as an anti-lesbianism pill. That is certainly an issue.
Say you present a couple with a choice after a blood test reveals that their developing fetus will be born with an extra 21st chromosome (Downs), tests positive for multiple sclerosis, or is a carrier....the choice being would they like to abort? There's plenty of debate going about this type of choice, but it likely wouldn't surprise most people that many parents choose to abort.
Say you have a couple that wants a boy, but discover that their fetus is female. You'd probably be even more surprised to see the number of couples that choose to abort simply based
on gender.
In one case, you have a procedure that due to several circumstances, makes a rational argument for either decision. In another, the procedure seems to be abused unnecessarily, and perhaps unethically.
What about the drug companies that spend billions testing pills that are meant to control blood pressure, find that they have no efficacy for such, but then market them another way? Viagra?
Or reps that encourage improper usage of pills to patient populations that do not meet certain profiles simply to increase profit? In one case, the drug is wonderful in that it very much helps a particular group of patients; but when given to the wrong population, causes very serious issues--namely, death. Simply b/c the drug kills patients that have never received it, it should be denied to those who receive the most benefit? Personally, I don't think so.