Roger Highfield, a science editor for telegraph.co.uk, reported on February 5th that ten embryos have been created as combinations of DNA from one man and two women. This development is intended “to combine IVF with cell surgery to wipe out diseases caused by the equivalent of faulty "batteries" in cells, called mitochondria, that affect one person in every 6,500 with a constellation of conditions, from fatal liver failure, stroke-like episodes, blindness, mental retardation with intractable epilepsy, muscle weakness, diabetes and deafness”(Highfield). I believe that the ability for scientists to modify humans so as to prevent these diseases is a positive advancement and should be allowed in most circumstances if it will not alter the personality or inherent characteristics of the child and will make their life noticeably easier.
However, this fantastic development brings up some of the questions that Adam posed: when is it acceptable to genetically modify children?
To begin, I believe that his contention that the definition of disease, in some societies, could be extended to women because they are socially less worthwhile than men is inaccurate because it assumes that a social convention can determine a disorder, while a disease is something that is structurally wrong with a person’s biological make-up, something that would be different if the cells had all formed and developed correctly. I believe that people should only be genetically altered when they are afflicted by a disease, not when they have a different skin color, hair color, IQ, etc.
Some may believe that we should never modify people genetically, or only modify for the most severe diseases, but I believe that most modifications to remedy diseases are worthwhile because they do not change the inherent characteristics of the individual and they retain that individual’s autonomy. They also preserve the positive genetic diversity in our species, which helps prevent other diseases and make the species more resilient.
Even if the result of modification is positive, the means, in this case are potentially questionable. Who should be the parent(s) of genetically modified children? Should test tube babies have the right to know some or all of their parents, or do they have any right to be carried to term? Even if the children who are genetically constructed are never carried to term in the status quo, I believe that they eventually will be, if only for the purposes of fully investigating the implications of genetically altering them. In new discoveries, we must address both the ends and means of achieving genetic modification so as to determine if it’s ethical.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Both Kelley and Adam claim that some forms of genetic engineering on humans may have beneficial outcomes and may be ethically acceptable to society. Though I agree on some level, I think this is a situation where the risks and the consequences of genetic engineering greatly outweigh the benefits to individuals and society. Kelley claims that genetically modifying humans can make “their life noticeably easier” by ridding them of disease. The benefit to humans seems obvious: diseases can be cured and lives can be made easier. For those who are able to have such treatment, the benefit is enormous. But is this a benefit for everyone?
Realistically, genetic engineering is a treatment reserved for those who can afford it. If such gene therapy becomes a reality, only those able to pay would benefit. Only those in the upper class could afford the treatment, creating a tiered society even more drastic and troublesome than exists today. The disparity between the upper and lower class would become even larger. The upper class would be rid of diseases which would still plague the middle and lower classes. Even if universal health care made such treatment available for all citizens, what about citizens in other countries? Citizens in developed nations could be cured of disease which affect millions in poorer areas of the world. The gap between powerful nations and third world countries would become even wider.
Genetic engineering does present a benefit to society, but the benefit does not and realistically cannot extend past those who can afford it and those who have access to it. Though we face this problem now with other medical treatments such as advanced surgeries and medications, what benefit would come from creating an even larger problem? These modifications would create an even larger gap between levels of society and would create one level of “perfect”, disease-free humans while the rest are left to suffer.
Though I generally agree with Mary's position, I would have to disagree with her justification. I don't believe that genetic engineering would create a problem of disparity in our society. Though what you said is probably true, that a certain level of income would be required to gain access to the benefits of genetic engineering, I can't say that that situation in and of itself is a problem. No one would be harmed health-wise, but some would benefit. To say that something is unfair because the richer man will have access to it while the poorer man will not is to condemn capitalism.
Now, it is a possibility that you meant to say that it would cause indirect problems in the long run - if so, what were you thinking of?
Alex took the words right out of my mouth: "To say that something is unfair because the richer man will have access to it while the poorer man will not is to condemn capitalism" (Alexander Hwang). Sure, it may be unfair that poor people do not have the money to afford expensive treatments, but is it not also unfair to deny people with the means and desire to correct diseases the ability to do so?
I think in the short run it is very likely that only the rich would be able to afford genetic engineering treatments. This factor is no different than our current health system: the rich habitually can receive better health care because they can afford to. Although many people feel that this too is unfair, the debate over national health care is an entirely different issue (one which I would be happy to engage in). In the long run, however, I feel that a disparity between the "classes" in terms of genetic engineering would dissipate; as techniques in genetic engineering became more refined, the process would become cheaper and more of the population would be able to afford it.
To stem away from financial implications, I believe we need to look at the real ethical issues at hand. Many of these technologies are relatively new. Kelly said that it is appropriate to use genetic modifications in the cases of child disease, but this article is talking about modifying the cells even before the child has been "born." Can we be certain that we are correcting something that needs to be corrected--do we know without a doubt that the child will develop this disease if not corrected? Mistakes are often made. I have heard stories of mothers who undergo a karyotype test while pregnant and are told that their baby will have down syndrome. However, months later, the baby is born perfectly normal. Should we alter genes before birth just because we believe there is a possibility of disease? What if the child becomes worse off?
Also, regarding the "parent" issue, there would be certain social issues for test tube babies. Not only would these babies suffer the same difficulties as adopted children, but there would be other psychological effects as well if they were to be told that they came "from a test tube." If we are to believe that telling the children this truth would affect them, do we instead shelter them by not revealing their origins? However, one can argue that it is their right to know such information.
I am certainly supportive of the advancement of science, but I believe we must look at the ethical implications in tampering with genes. Also, social/psychological aspects must be considered.
Replying to Alex and Adam's comments, I believe that the disparity between classes will be huge. I believe that genetic engineering will create a two-tiered society where the rich have the ability to achieve "perfection" and the poor are still disease-ridden. Ideally, yes, there would not be this gap, but you say that "the rich habitually can receive better health care because they can afford to" (Adam). If there is already a disparity, then what will happen when treatments become available which will cure only those who can afford it of diseases? In a perfect world these treatments would be available for everyone but as Adam said, even now the level of treatments received is wealth-driven. Perhaps I am just nervous about the repercussions of genetic modification but I am afraid our society would split into a small class of those who can achieve "perfection" and those who remain normal. I fear that the gap would grow larger, and if germline genetic engineering occurred, passing the modifications onto future generations, then I fear this is a split in society which will only be perpetuated.
Post a Comment