Though embryo screening is seen as a gift because of its ability to detect diseased genes, human genetic engineering can be viewed as a greater blessing with its ability to modify the gene carrying the disease. In my research paper, I will discuss how Kant and Mill believe determining the fates of our future generation, and how its future is unethical, while also discussing how Julian Savelescu believes it is a moral obligation to select for valuable characteristic traits. The focal argument and debate between the two opposing sides lies on the ethics of parenting: “whether parents should be maximizing their children’s well-being, or simply giving them a good enough life” (Savelescu 1). Recently, a project by scientists, The Human Genome Project, has come to completion. This project took years of compiled knowledge and advancement in technology to be able to successfully map out a sequence of three billion nucleotides of the human genome.
Kantian deontology is defined as treating the individual as more than a means for an end. (Hinman 23). In other words, people ought to act in a way as to not violate the individual’s rights and to treat him or her respectfully. Though the cost may be great, the use of human stem cell research in the growing world of science would be beneficial so long as certain moral guidelines were put in place to limit the abuse of technologies and only allow said procedures to take place when they do not violate the autonomy of a human being. The use of stem cell research and cloning to personalize the medical world would allow doctors to more accurately treat sickness and disease in each individual.
In one study, genetic testing was the “best way to confirm genetic disease diagnostic” (Rew et al., 2010). This can prepare parents to know what expect and how to treat the disease or disorder. The results also help the doctors to be prepared if the child has the certain disease or not. It can allow the quality of living to increase as more intervention programs can help treat the potential disease. Even these tests can give an insight of the child’s health, it only shows the likelihood of getting the disease.
One reason people protest the idea of cloning is because may are mystified as to how it could be used and what its purposes can be. I know that if it were your child, you would use every possible measure to keep them alive. The fact that we, as humans, might be able to figure out how to clone so that lives could be saved is extremely exciting and inspiring. On the other hand, there is a time and a place for everything, including research. While cloning is justifiable in certain circumstances, I would want to make sure other healthcare issues were taken care before donating money to research for cloning.
9427, pp. 2147. Ralston, M 2008, Stem cell research around the world, Pew Research Religion and Public Life Project, viewed 15th April 2014, . Spriggs, M 2003 ‘Therapeutic cloning research and ethical oversight’, Journal of medical ethics, vol. 29, no.
“Stem Cell Information Center.” National Institutes of Health. 2009. Web. Steinbock, Bonnie. “The Science, Policy, and Ethics of Stem Cell Research.” Reproductive BioMedicine Online, Vol.14.
Retrieved April 18, 2014, from http://www.genome.gov/10002405 Ross, L.F., Saal, H.M., David, K.L., & Anderson, R.R. (2013). Technical report: ethical and policy issues in genetic testing and screening of children. Genetics in Medicine, 15, 234-245. Savulescu, J.
This could exist in the form of regulatory agencies, peer review boards, and local research of ethical communities (Heaf). Parents should not be able to alter their child’s genome in a way that harms the child. If the parents knowingly did such a thing, civil court penalties could be incurred against both the parents and doctors involved (Britt). Society would improve as genetic engineering advances. It will just need to adapt to keep its use from being exploited and to allow the full benefits to be