In this paper, I will argue that genetic therapies should be allowed for diseases and disabilities that cause individuals pain, shorter life spans, and noticeable disadvantages in life. I believe this because everyone deserves to have the most even starting place in life as possible. That is no being should be limited in their life due to diseases and disabilities that can be cured with genetic therapies. I will be basing my argument off the article by “Gene Therapies and the Pursuit of a Better Human” by Sara Goering. One objection to genetic therapies is that removing disabilities and diseases might cause humans to lose sympathy towards others and their fragility (332). However, I do not believe this because there are many other events and conditions in society that spark human compassion and sympathy towards others.
First, I must define what types of diseases and disabilities fall under the category of things I believe we should be able to treat with genetic therapies and why. As Goering states, “if a child needs surgery or a painful treatment to survive or to thrive, we allow ourselves room to do what is ‘best for the child’ even if that may involve unavoidable pain that the child is not able to consent to.” If we were to except this as true, then a logical conclusion would be to fix the problem through genetic therapy before a child has to go through any pain. We should save them from these gruesome experiences. Some examples that Goering lists are Tay-Sachs disease, Lesch-Nyan syndrome, and cystic fibrosis (332).
There are many other instances of disabilities or diseases that can cause disadvantages in life. Goering lists deafness and color-blindness, but I think that paralysis should also be included in thi...
... middle of paper ...
...sion and sympathy. Genetic therapy will not cause the human race to feel less sympathetic towards others who are in a frail state.
I believe that Goering would agree with me. She focuses more on the fact that people will want to remove all pain, i.e. adolescence. She never touches on the fact that there are many other types of suffering that happen every day. There is no way we could ever prevent every event that causes any sort of pain. Basic day-to-day activities, such as walking and eating, can cause pain such as stubbing your toe or burning your tongue. We will always have daily pain and suffering, but genetic therapy can get rid of long-term pain and suffering caused by diseases and disabilities. For these reasons, Goering would agree with me that humanity would not loose their sympathy and compassion towards others who are more frail then they are.
The two essays “On Being a Cripple” by Nancy Mairs and “A Plague of Tics” by David Sedaris are excellent pieces of work that share many similarities. This paper would reflect on these similarities particularly in terms of the author, message and the targeted audience. On an everyday basis, people view those with disabilities in a different light and make them conscious at every step. This may be done without a conscious realisation but then it is probably human nature to observe and notice things that deviate from the normal in a society. In a way people are conditioned to look negatively at those individuals who are different in the conventional
Think about all the physical feats your body can do and how you use your body every day. There are many people across the globe who do not have this privilege. Hold that thought. The essays, “On Being a Cripple”, by Nancy Mairs, and “Living Under Circe’s Spell”, by Matthew Soyster are both about how each author deals with multiple sclerosis in their life and their opinions on it.
Then there is the physically crippled who know what happens if they outlive their usefulness. Next to that there's the physical barrier of being a black person in a racial, conscious society. All in all, being crippled physically, socially or emotionally was just a way of life back in the thirty's. Lennie is the major cause of George being crippled socially and emotionally.
Moreover, within the text, the significance of symbolism is apparent as there are indications of the presence of different handicaps. Notably, those with above average physical attributes and above average intelligence are required by law to wear handicaps. Thus, the application and enforcement of handicaps are metaphors for sameness, because individuals with advantageous traits are limited and refrained from using their bodies and brains to their maximum abilities, for that is considered to be unfair to those who does not possess the same level of capability. Several main examples of handicaps includes “...47 pounds of birdshot… ear radios… spectacles intended to make [one] not only half blind but to [provide] whanging headaches”. Therefore, the intensity of the handicaps is a sign of the government’s seriousness in the field of administering disabilities onto their own citizens. Unfortunately, in order to maintain the sickly “equality”, the people are stripped off of their freedom. When announcers are unable to speak properly, and ballerinas are unable to dance properly, and musicians unable to perform properly, and people are unable to formulate thoughts properly — it is not a matter of equality, but a matter how low society
This model defines disability as a complication with an individual’s body structure or function, which affects the individual’s ability to carry out everyday tasks thus resulting in ‘restricted participation in the environment’ (Alperstein et al., 2009: 239). Dylan’s disability explains this model, as he has no function in his legs, which affects his ability to carry out everyday tasks e.g. being in an environment, which is not suitable for wheelchairs hence restricting his participation in those
...ne starts life with an equal chance of health and success. Yet, gene therapy can also be thought of as a straight route towards a dark outlook, where perfection is the first priority, genes are seen as the ultimate puppeteer, and personal freedom to thrive based on one’s self isn’t believed to exist. With the emergence of each new technological discovery comes the emergence of each new ethical debate, and one day, each viewpoint on this momentous issue may be able to find a bit of truth in the other. Eventually, our society may reach a compromise on gene therapy.
Recent breakthroughs in the field of genetics and biotechnology have brought attention to the ethical issues surrounding human enhancement. While these breakthroughs have many positive aspects, such as the treatment and prevention of many debilitating diseases and extending human life expectancy well beyond its current limits, there are profound moral implications associated with the ability to manipulate our own nature. Michael Sandel’s “The Case Against Perfection” examines the ethical and moral issues associated with human enhancement while Nick Bostrom’s paper, “In Defense of Posthuman Dignity” compares the positions that transhumanists and bioconservatists take on the topic of human enhancement. The author’s opinions on the issue of human genetic enhancement stand in contrast to one another even though those opinions are based on very similar topics. The author’s views on human enhancement, the effect enhancement has on human nature, and the importance of dignity are the main issues discussed by Sandel and Bostrom and are the focus of this essay.
Many people often ask, “Is it acceptable for human beings to manipulate human genes” (Moral and Ethical Issues in Gene Therapy). Most of the ethical issues centralize on the Christian understanding of a human being. They believe God made them the way they are and people should accept their fate.The Society, Religion and Technology Project have researched and found that countless people are curious if gene therapy is the right thing to do. They have a problem with exploiting the genes a person is born with due to the fact they consider it to be “playing God” (Moral and Ethical Issues in Gene Therapy). They are also concerned with the safety. On account of the unfamiliar and inexperienced technology. Gene therapy has only been around since 1990, so scientists are still trying to find the best possible way to help cure these diseases. Multiple scientists are cautious with whom they share their research. For the reason that if it were to get into in the wrong hands it could conceivably start a superhuman race. Author Paul Recer presumes using germline engineering to cure fatal diseases or even to generate designer babies that will be stronger, smarter, or more immune to infections (Gene Therapy Creates Super-Muscles). Scientists could enhance height, athleticism and even intelligence. The possibilities are endless. Germline engineering, however, would alter every cell in the body. People would no longer have to worry about the alarming and intimidating combinations of their parents’ genes. Genetic engineers are able to eliminate unnatural genes, change existing ones or even add a few extra. Like it or not, in a few short years scientists will have the power to control the evolution of
Despite being magical of gene therapy, it is high-risk. Few people got benefits from it, and it has a low rate of success. Prior to the human trial, Batshaw and Wilson had done experiment on animals to ensure the safety. Over 20 experiments have been done on mice but only 12 of them survived at last (Sophia, M. and Kolehmainen, J.D., 2000). More seriously, complicating diseases, which can be more dangerous than genetic diseases, might set in during the treatment period. In December 200...
Wesley J. Smith goes on and on about how eugenicists would want to create homogeneity among Humans, valuing traits such as intelligence and looks instead of love, compassion, and empathy. He feels that this would create an unnatural society of human beings, creating chaos among the world. What he fails to recognize however is that it is not nearly as simple to do this as he thinks. Right now, cloning is in its very elementary stages, and most research being done is for medical purposes. Through advancing our knowledge in cloning and genetic engineering, we can eliminate unwanted traits and genetic diseases. Wesley may then try to argue that these unwanted traits and diseases make us unique, but I doubt he will get much support, especially from somebody who suffers from some horrible genetic disease or deformity.
The evolution of technology has been hand in hand with the human subjugation of earth, but the question persists, when does the use of technology go too far? Advances in medical science have tremendously improved the average human lifespan and the quality of life for individuals. Medical science and biology are steadily arriving at new ways to make humans superior by the use of advanced genetic alteration. This ability raises the question of how ought this new technology be used, if at all? The idea of human enhancement is a very general, since humans are constantly “enhancing” themselves through the use of tools. In referring to human enhancement, I am specifically referring to the use of genetic intervention prior to birth. Julian Savulescu in his, “Genetic Interventions and the Ethics of Enhancement of Human Beings” argues that it is not only permissible to intervene genetically, but is morally obligatory. In this paper I will argue that it is not morally obligatory to genetically intervene, but may be permissible under the criterion established by Savulescu. I plan to argue that the argument used by Savulescu for the obligation to genetically intervene is not the same obligation as the prevention and treatment of disease. The ability for humans to genetically intervene is not sufficient to provide a moral obligation.
John Harris in the article "Is Gene Therapy a Form of Eugenics?" says that there is no moral difference between treating dysfunction and genetic enhancement, where improvement protects life and health. Gene therapy is the treatment of diseases with the help of genes, while eugenics is the science of improving the population of people, by deducing the desired characteristics. John Harris identifies eugenics producing the best offspring. He supports eugenics in those cases when we are talking about the potential life of a child from the life of a potential disability. According to Harris, gene therapy is ethically justified, since improving the qualities will lead to the protection of the future generation. It should be noted that he believes
Since its inception, gene therapy has captured the attention of the public and ethics disciplines as a therapeutic application of human genetic engineering. The latter, in particular, has lead to concerns about germline modification and questions about the distinction between therapy and enhancement. The development of the gene therapy field and its progress to the clinic has not been without controversy. Although initially considered as a promising approach for treating the genetic of disease, the field has attracted disappointment for failing to fulfil its potential. With the resolution of many of the barriers that restricted the progress of gene therapy and increasing reports of clinical success, it is now generally recognised that earlier expectations may have been premature.
The evolution of technology has been hand in hand with the human subjugation of earth, but the question persists, when does the use of technology go too far? Advances in medical science have increased the average human lifespan and improved the quality of life for individuals. Medical science and biology are steadily arriving at new ways to alter humans by the use of advanced genetic alteration. This technology gives rise to the question of how this new technology ought to be used, if at all. The idea of human enhancement is a very general topic, since humans are constantly “enhancing” themselves through the use of tools. In referring to human enhancement, I am referring specifically to the use of genetic intervention prior to birth. Julian Savulescu, in his, “Genetic Interventions and the Ethics of Enhancement of Human Beings,” argues that it is not only permissible to intervene genetically, but is a morally obligatory. In this paper, I will argue that it is not morally obligatory to intervene genetically even if such intervention may be permissible under certain criteria. I will show, in contrast to Savulescu’s view, that the moral obligation to intervene is not the same as the moral obligation to prevent and treat disease. In short, I will show that the ability of humans to intervene genetically is not sufficient to establish a moral obligation.
Scientists and the general population favor genetic engineering because of the effects it has for the future generation; the advanced technology has helped our society to freely perform any improvements. Genetic engineering is currently an effective yet dangerous way to make this statement tangible. Though it may sound easy and harmless to change one’s genetic code, the conflicts do not only involve the scientific possibilities but also the human morals and ethics. When the scientists first used mice to practice this experiment, they “improved learning and memory” but showed an “increased sensitivity to pain.” The experiment has proven that while the result are favorable, there is a low percentage of success rate. Therefore, scientists have concluded that the resources they currently own will not allow an approval from the society to continually code new genes. While coding a new set of genes for people may be a benefitting idea, some people oppose this idea.