Exposing Walter Glannon 's Position On The Differentially Between Gene Therapy And Gene Enhancement
1310 Words6 Pages
In this paper, I will negatively expose Walter Glannon’s position on the differentially between gene therapy and gene enhancement. His argument fails because gene therapy and genetic enhancement is morally impermissible because its manipulation and destruction of embryos shows disrespect for human life and discrimination against people with disabilities.
According to Walter Glannon, he argues that gene therapy must be distinguished from genetic enhancement. He states that there is a clear difference between both for the reason that gene therapy is morally acceptable if it is anticipated to ensure or restore normal functions yet it is morally prohibited if it is aimed at enriching these functions beyond the common normal. He states that his main point of the argument is that enhancement of both physical and mental would give individuals un fair advantage over others, and by unfair, meaning that those would could afford technology would have a reachable access, then those who are financially worse off. To be able to understand gene therapy and genetic enhancement, we must first be able to identify the similarities and differences in both.
Gene therapy is a treatment intervention aimed at handling diseases and restoring physical and mental functions and capacities to an adequate baseline. Gene therapy works in three ways; it works to replace a missing or defective gene with a normal one, replace a faulty gene so that it will function properly and it works to activate and deactivate a gene, allowing it to “switch” on and off. Gene therapy is done by the deliverance of a gene to a cell via a carrier, or vector, such as a virus. Scientists lean more towards using a virus because they can seek out particular cells and transfer pieces ...
... middle of paper ...
...change for the better”, then who gets to decide what “better” is, or what a “good” or “positive” change is? Do we look to the scientists for answers, or the government or the police?
Glannon’s contradiction to my objection would be that if we were actually concern who placing the “power” or decisions in the hands of someone else, the simple solution would be the create a supermarket system where parents picked out and decided what traits they want their child to possess. My objection to this would be that if the government or scientists were to introduce such supermarket system, who would control that? Who would stop the parents from creating children with the ability to speak ten different languages or the ability to be seven-feet tall. There would be no control, and then the parents would inevitably make certain disturbing choices so no one can state otherwise.