Because gene therapy involves changing the human body, it comes with its set of ethical concerns, which are not answered fully nor so rapidly. Until such scientific and technological advancements, people dealt with their genetic inequality (if faced with one) as their reality, as part of their life until they died. But with the advent of gene therapy, people may have a choice to deal with their genetic inequalities, even though it may not threaten their health or way of life. Dealing with genetic inequalities that are not dangerous to a person’s health follows a eugenic aura. It questions the normality of a person and categorizes genetic inequalities as disabilities. Also, it treats the latter as diseases needed to be cured and/or prevented.
Gregory Stock, in his article Choosing Our Genes, asserts that at this point not ethics are important, but rather the future of genetic technology. Stock supports his conclusion by providing powerful examples of how genetic modifications can benefit our population anywhere from correcting genes at the time of conception to extending lifespan. He wants to inform his audience about all of the benefits of genetic technology in order to prove that there are way more advantages in this technology that are highly desirable by people of different ages. He reaches his readers by writing a very detailed yet coherent article that brings awareness to various groups of people from parents to be to older populations.
The Declaration of Independence describes individual rights as “the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” (Congress). These inalienable rights are threatened by genetic modification. Specifically, Tony Wang, in his research on the ethics of genetic
In his article Is Gene Therapy a Form of Eugenics, John Harris discusses the concept of Eugenics when it comes to using Gene Therapy. Harris defines Eugenics as adapting to the production of “fine” offspring, or artificially producing offspring to fit certain criteria. He stresses on how this concept should be achieved. His main argument is that we should be in favor of Eugenics when it comes to potentially saving a child from living a potential disabled life. Harris believes that his view is not wrong, but believes that it is a matter of indifference whether we call it Eugenics or not. Harris argues that Gene Therapy is ethically sound, and
a need is being creating where no problem existed before, namely the desirability of a
The last 150 years have seen the origin of—and rapid expansion in—human knowledge involving the nature and mechanisms of trait and disease inheritance in human beings. Advances in genetic research hold great promise for the future development of effective prevention and treatment strategies for a great many, often devastating, heritable conditions. However, these advances also raise a series of policy, legal and fundamentally ethical questions concerning what we should and should not do with the knowledge and technology we acquire. These questions are numerous and both imminently practical and speculative, ranging from the exhausted, yet still largely unresolved, question of the moral status of the human embryo to fears about slippery slopes into a Brave New World or Gattaca-style dystopic future characterized by designer children and a genetic underclass.
Other than our desire for perfection, we as humans also have another desire: to learn about ourselves. We have the desire to explore our humanity. We often like to look within ourselves and question things about ourselves. In this way, eugenics should be explored in order to answer questions we have about ourselves. " Humanly speaking, the new genetics seems to have five dimensions or meanings: (1) genetics as a route to self-understanding, a way of knowing ourselves; (2) genetics as a route to new medical therapies, a way of curing ourselves; (3) genetics as a potential tool for human re-engineering, a prospect I find far-fetched; (4) genetics as a means of knowing something about our biological destiny, about our health and sickness in the future; and (5) genetics as a tool for screening the traits of the next generation, for choosing some lives and rejecting others."
In 1990, gene therapy allowed for a girl to no longer have a weakened immune system through manipulated cells. The new gene replaced the mutated gene, allowing her to produce ADA and therefore boost her immune system. In the past 25 years, over 2000 new therapies have been approved to “cure” leukemia and rare disorders. In the future, we may even be able to cure HIV. However, is this gene manipulation ethical? From a scientist’s view, genetic engineering may eliminate disorders and some diseases. It would prevent life-impairing disorders such as Trisomy 13 and Huntington’s, and it would cure certain cancers. But, from a social view, is it moral to change someone’s DNA? Will gene manipulation allow the rich to “build a child” with the ideal characteristics and widen the class gap? Other questions also arise. How are we to support the growing population with our limited food supply? Will everyone eventually become the perfect being and become identical, resulting in no variation? And with this lack of variation, could a single disease wipe out
Adversely, due to individual preferences and beliefs some may find the political instruction legalizing Gene Therapy unethical. Thus, whilst the impact of Gene Therapy is
Gene therapy is deemed to be the ‘use of genes as medicine’. “Gene therapy is a form of therapy that involves inserting one or more corrective genes that have been designed in the laboratory, into the genetic material of a patient's cells to cure a genetic disease by replacing the missing or malfunctioning genes” (Mandal). There are two types of gene therapy, which are in vitro gene therapy, which takes place outside the body and in vivo therapy, which takes place inside the body. Both types are very time-consuming processes containing many detailed steps that can easily go wrong. First is in vitro or ex vivo gene therapy, which again is outside the body. In this technique, cells are surgically taken out from the tissue area that is impacted. The next step is that the corrective DNA or genes that will be used to treat the disease are spliced or injected into the cells, and then the cells are left to be cultured. The final step is that the new tissues are put back into the body in the area, which was affected. The use of bone marrow cells as recipients of the gene is very common due to the fact that they create the blood that will eventually be circulated throughout the body (Oracle ThinkQuest).
Harris argues that when people consider gene therapy they need to ask “what kind of children do we want?” A) children as fine as children normally are or B) children as fine as children can be. If healthy nondisabled children are desired, how could we judge someone who didn’t take the steps to ensure this when able? One might object that this view is discriminating against the disabled. Harris replies to this by saying that disabled people have equal moral status.
Although the treatment is costly and only available in clinical trials, gene therapy has treated some of the most known diseases, like Parkinson’s disease. People who are for gene therapy believe that it will change our world by getting rid of sickness. They think of a world without cancer and Parkinson’s disease. However, the people against gene therapy see a world with technology overtaking civilization. In their eyes, they think that gene therapy is wrong because of the side effects and the concept behind it. In addition, when thinking about gene therapy, the opposers conjecture that changing the genetic makeup of someone affected with genetic illness is wrong. I, on the other hand, believe that changing the genetic makeup of someone that is ill and suffering is exceptional because it is to their advantage. All in all, gene therapy is a heavily debated topic, but I believe that gene therapy can change our world in a positive
The birth of a child is supposed to be a time of joy, the uncertainty of life leads to this one point in time. Will she or he be the next president, a star athlete, a genius or just fall into the crowd as another citizen. With recent advancements in science, this uncertainty has become a thing of the past. The human being is now seen as a commodity and no more is valued in the uncertainty of individuality. The parent can now choose how they want their child to come out or develop into. Sandel’s book The Case Against Perfection: Ethics in the Case of Modern Eugenics is a well researched look into examples of modern eugenics and the problems that arise from it. These topics range from the ethics of cloning, athletes using performance enhancing drugs, and other practical uses in everyday life. Sandel’s argument is that there is value in human nature (even with all its flaws), and genetic engineering will forever change human nature. Destroying the very essence of what it is to be human and scarring humanity. The main features of human nature that will be altered: are responsibility, humility and solidarity.
The second half of the twentieth century was characterized by the accelerated development of biomedicine and molecular biology, obtained from DNA knowledge (De las Mercedes O 'Lery, 2006). This discovery allowed a more effective and purposeful manipulation in our genome and, therefore, the hereditary constitution of the humanity (De las Mercedes O 'Lery, 2006). The reformists defended that the eugenic measures should be voluntary and limited the scope of private decision based on the freedom of individuals and their families to exercise their reproductive rights to have children or not have them if their genetic characteristics include some kind of inherited disease (Fernández, 2009). In the 1940s and 50s, the genetic counseling gained popularity, creating the prenatal diagnosis and the therapeutic abortion, a form of abortion that became legal in the 60s in many countries (Fernández, 2009). Since 1970, eugenic practices are widespread across genetic diagnostic techniques, embryology, and molecular genetics that have had a spectacular development by implementing new techniques, such as in-vitro fertilization and DNA recombination in the Human Genome Project (Fernández, 2009).
Just as there are different types of people who look at one glass of water and describe it as half full or half empty, the public has many different views on the future of our society. Gene therapy is also a glass that can be viewed in different angles – different perspectives. Some say it has great potential to shape the ideals of our future, while others believe it signifies intolerance for disabilities, imperfections that supposedly deplete from a person’s interests, opportunities and welfare (quoted by Peter Singer, xviii). This global issue has brought people with different opinions in the open, arguing their views using history,
Every living thing is the product of the genes that were passed down from ancestors. Genes make up everything we are. One gets their traits from their parents. Most people live full lives with relatively good health. However, some people inherit mutated genes or faulty genes. This could lead to genetic disorders that could be life threatening. Even today, many genetic disorders still remain incurable, leaving many people without hope. Genetic therapy could be their answer. It is through this research that the cure for genetic disorders can be found. Though some people believe it is unethical or immoral to alter genes, current therapeutics have not been able to save the lives of the patients with these diseases. Genetic therapy