Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The universal law formulation of the categorical imperative
Categorical imperative ethics
The universal law formulation of the categorical imperative
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Case Study - Background
In the United States, if someone needs to have a DNA test done, there is a possibility that it has been patented by a DNA research company. The problem with this is that it can raise the cost of a DNA test from about two hundred dollars, to over two thousand, depending on the test being done. Up to forty-one percent of the genes in your body are actually owned by another company, and are not legally owned by yourself. In particular, Myriad Genetics holds a patent in the BRCA1 and the BRCA2 gene, also owning at least fifteen nucleotides of BRCA1. The owning of these genes is significant because a defective BRCA1 gene can make one much more likely to develop breast or ovarian cancer, up to an eighty five or ninety percent chance. In addition, the BRCA1 gene appears in over 689 other genes that affect many other parts of the body such as brain and heart function. These genes were patented by Myriad in the 90s, shortly after their ability to be patented. When a doctor takes blood from a patient, immediately after it is drawn, Myriad owns it, and it must be sent to them for testing. The problem with patenting DNA is that technically speaking, you don’t “own” part of your own body, the genetic code that makes up who you are; rather a company does, and controls what is done with it and how it is tested. Biological patents are not limited to humans, they extend to the cattle industry, which leads to another problem in itself, the genetic engineering of cows and other animals.
The ones who would be in favor of DNA patents would be research and pharmaceutical companies. The main reason why gene patents would be supported would be the fact that they let these companies earn money, and in exchange, they put their re...
... middle of paper ...
...entions cannot be accounted for, and the true intentions are shed through the light.
When coming to a conclusion that Kant would have, using categorical imperatives can be very helpful in the determination of the outcome. Categorical imperatives are moral rules that must be followed by everyone, or “universal laws,” according to Kant. Using this reasoning, if Myriad Genetics were on the side of someone who may have cancer and needs to have a test, then how would they feel to that? They would have to pay out of pocket as well, as insurance does not cover this analysis. When situations are looked at from the other side’s perspective, the validity of an action can completely be eliminated. Based on this reasoning, Kant would propose to make it illegal to patent any genes in the human body, or anything in the human body for that matter.
Case Study – Catholic Ethics
In the late twentieth century, the field of biotechnology and genetic engineering has positioned itself to become one of the great technological revolutions of human history. Yet, things changed when Herber Boyer, a biochemist at the University of California, founded the company Genentech in 1976 to exploit the commercial potential of his research. Since then the field has exploded into a global amalgam of private research firms developing frivolous, profit-hungry products, such as square trees tailor-made for lumber, without any sort of government regulation.
In today’s modern age science is moving at a rapid pace; one of those scientific fields that has taken the largest leaps is that of genetics. When genetics first comes to mind, many of us think of it as a type of science fiction, or a mystical dream. Yet genetics is here, it is real, and has numerous ethical implications.
Studies to make the process quicker and cleaner are under development.... ... middle of paper ... ... Insurance providers and other holders of genetic information should be prohibited from releasing genetic information (Hudson, 1998). Guidelines like these need to be formed into a federal law that people can pass in one way or another so that we can be protected from the various forms of discrimination that is possible with this kind of information.
The more we know about genetics and the building blocks of life the closer we get to being capable of cloning a human. The study of chromosomes and DNA strains has been going on for years. In 1990, the Unites States Government founded the Human Genome Project (HGP). This program was to research and study the estimated 80,000 human genes and determine the sequences of 3 billion DNA molecules. Knowing and being able to examine each sequence could change how humans respond to diseases, viruses, and toxins common to everyday life. With the technology of today the HGP expects to have a blueprint of all human DNA sequences by the spring of 2000. This accomplishment, even though not cloning, presents other new issues for individuals and society. For this reason the Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications (ELSI) was brought in to identify and address these issues. They operate to secure the individuals rights to those who contribute DNA samples for studies. The ELSI, being the biggest bioethics program, has to decide on important factors when an individual’s personal DNA is calculated. Such factors would include; who would have access to the information, who controls and protects the information and when to use it? Along with these concerns, the ESLI tries to prepare for the estimated impacts that genetic advances could be responsible for in the near future. The availability of such information is becoming to broad and one needs to be concerned where society is going with it.
Over 40 years ago, two men by the names of James Watson and Francis Crick discovered deoxyribonucleic acid, or DNA. DNA is hereditary material in humans and almost all other organisms (What is DNA?). From this finding, gene therapy evolved. Today, researchers are able to isolate certain specific genes, repair them, and use them to help cure diseases such as cystic fibrosis and hemophilia. However, as great as this sounds, there are numerous ethical and scientific issues that will arise because of religion and safety.
Due to the human genome project and other genetic research, tests for mutation which cause diseases have been developed. The list of these illnesses include several types of cancer. Doctors have estimated that as many as 3,000 diseases are due to mutations in the genome. These diseases include several types of colon cancer in which three different genetic tests have been already developed. Debates have arisen on whether these tests should be used regularly or not. Questions including the patients= rights of privacy and the possibility of loss of health or life insurance have been argued over in both the media and political arena.
...r, human genetic engineering is not immoral; the failure to use such a technology is truly what is unjust. To negate the resolution is to turn a person away from a possible cure, from a chance to prolong life. I have shown that human genetic engineering can improve the health of the society by both curing disease and prolonging live. Both benefits are worthy goals of any just society. These possible benefits of genetic engineering, those of curing disease and prolonging life, outweigh any possible "side-effects" that may occur with the development of any new technology. But we must remember that we do not rush into any new technology; human genetic engineering will be done carefully as with any technology, so that we may maximize the benefits of such a great gift to society. For these reasons, I affirm the resolution, "Human genetic engineering is morally justified."
The genetic technology revolution has proved to be both a blessing and a blight. The Human Genome Project is aimed at mapping and sequencing the entire human genome. DNA chips are loaded with information about human genes. The chip reveals specific information about the individuals’ health and genetic makeup (Richmond & Germov 2009).The technology has been described as a milestone by many in that it facilitates research, screening, and treatment of genetic conditions. However, there have been fears that the technology permits a reduction in privacy when the information is disclosed. Many argue that genetic information can also be used unfairly to discriminate against or stigmatize individuals (Willis 2009).
The Human Genome Project is the largest scientific endeavor undertaken since the Manhattan Project, and, as with the Manhattan Project, the completion of the Human Genome Project has brought to surface many moral and ethical issues concerning the use of the knowledge gained from the project. Although genetic tests for certain diseases have been available for 15 years (Ridley, 1999), the completion of the Human Genome Project will certainly lead to an exponential increase in the number of genetic tests available. Therefore, before genetic testing becomes a routine part of a visit to a doctor's office, the two main questions at the heart of the controversy surrounding genetic testing must be addressed: When should genetic testing be used? And who should have access to the results of genetic tests? As I intend to show, genetic tests should only be used for treatable diseases, and individuals should have the freedom to decide who has access to their test results.
In recent years, genetic testing has become a popular topic in the media. Usually involving cheek swabs, blood samples, or amniotic fluid samples, the procedure is relatively simple and can help diagnose genetic disorders, determine ideal medication types, or simply determine the patient’s heritage. It has saved many lives from cancer and other afflictions, but to say that genetic testing is always the correct choice is false. There are many issues with the tests, considering that they are new to the medical world. Genetic testing is mostly harmful because of privacy concerns, how underdeveloped it is, and the risk of it pushing a mother to abort her child.
In today’s world, people are learning a great deal in the rapidly growing and developing fields of science and technology. Almost each day, an individual can see or hear about new discoveries and advances in these fields of study. One science that is rapidly progressing is genetic testing; a valuable science that promotes prevention efforts for genetically susceptible people and provides new strategies for disease management. Unnaturally, and morally wrong, genetic testing is a controversial science that manipulates human ethics. Although genetic testing has enormous advantages, the uncertainties of genetic testing will depreciate our quality of life, and thereby result in psychological burden, discrimination, and abortion.
Genetic testing, also known as screening, is a rapidly advancing new scientific field that can potentially revolutionize not only the world of medicine, but many aspects of our lives. Genetic screening is the sequencing of human DNA in order to discover genetic differences, anomalies, or mutations that may prove pathological. As genetic screening becomes more advanced and easily accessible, it presents society with difficult questions that must be asked about the boundaries of science and to what degree we are allowed to tamper with the human genome. To better understand the potential impact of genetic screening on our society, we must examine the potential benefits in comparison to the possible negative impact it may cause. With this knowledge in hand, we can examine what the future holds for this field of study and the best possible direction to take.
In an article titled “The Ethical Implications of Gene Therapy” the group of advisers on Ethical Implications of Biotechnology of the European commission states issues and rules that should be abided by, along with beliefs on the direction of biotechnology. At its present stage, biotechnology focuses on serious diseases which are incurable at the moment, however through this research treatment for these diseases could be found. The group of advisers feel that there should be levels at which research should focus on, instead of jumping into it all at once. Basic research should be carried out prior to clinical trials, and then move on to biotechnology. This can be done by supporting research actions, organizing training and exchange programs or any other appropriate means. Gene therapy protocols require that ethical evaluation consists of processes assuring quality, transparency and efficiency without delays of treatment to the patients who need it. This is crucial because an inefficient, poor quality treatment could cost someone their life. The group also feels that gene therapy research should be restricted to serious diseases for which there is not a current treatment. Expanding research to other things could be done if a medical evaluation calls for it. Equal access should be assured to all researchers within the European Union, thus sharing information and helping to improve orphan drugs. This could also save time and money. In order to insure the public of what is going on, conclusions of evaluations should regularly be published to encourage public debate. The public is not usually informed much about genetic therapy and many people have the wrong idea about it. Should reports be published more often, there will be less public confusion and ridicule.
The scientific and medical progress of DNA as been emense, from involving the identification of our genes that trigger major diseases or the creation and manufacture of drugs to treat these diseases. DNA has many significant uses to society, health and culture of today. One important area of DNA research is that used for genetic and medical research. Our abi...
...ring deadly diseases and preventing abortions. In order for gene therapy to one day become effective much more research needs to be done to discover the consequences of altering specific genes. Also the technology of gene therapy needs to be cost effective so people who need help are able to get help. In the end gene therapy in humans needs to come a long ways before it will be widely accepted but there is great potential in the technology and it needs to be pursued.