Genetic engineering encompasses a multitude of subjects from cloning to medicine to germline engineering. What began as a way to prevent horrible and fatal diseases – such as Tay-Sachs - has since progressed to a way for parents to decide life changing characteristics for their children. Such a desire is understandable, but one must consider the wishes and freedom of the child; in the sense that the parents can have no idea of what the future will hold, yet are predetermining an individual’s existence. This is where the debate on the matter begins and a line is drawn between the acceptable and objectionable. We shall say that this line lies between therapy and enhancement. We can safely say that it would be unethical to have a family suffer through Tay-Sachs when it could be prevented, but when it stops being about giving an individual child a life without a debilitating disease and starts being about creating a smarter, stronger more talented populace we have stepped over the line of ethically acceptable and used these individuals as a means. The potential for genetic engineering is enormous, but without a clear understanding of the consequences of our actions, we should not be able to determine the future of an individual. Our responsibility then becomes to ensure that the lines and ethical boundaries between therapy and enhancement are kept with consideration for the individual’s well being.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Interesting and well written Emily. I'm going to play devils advocate and say don't we want to have a super race of people? wouldn't that make for a smarter world? This is a fascinating paper and you do a great job of clearly laying out your position.
ReplyDeleteThis is a great Topic Emily. The first thing I would say is to not bring in the example of "Tay-Sachs" until you're going to talk about it; maybe you bring it up in a later paragraph? If so, wait until then to use it as an example. How would we exactly, in your definition, be using the child as a means? What is the big picture you believe Germline Engineering is working towards?
ReplyDeleteVery interesting topic.
ReplyDeleteYour position is clearly well stated.
-What do you mean in saying that the child is a means?
-What is difference between therapy and enhancement?
Overall great introduction to a fascinating topic.
Great introduction. I would also say to maybe not bring up "Tay-Sachs" until you have room to define it. If the child is being used as a means, what is the end? Who exactly holds the responsibility for maintaining a clear line in between therapy and enhancement? Doctors, family, or every individual in society?
ReplyDeleteI really like this! your thesis statement seems a little vague to me. What are the "lines and ethical boundaries" to which you are referring? should these lines be defined legally, or according to subjective moral standards? Why is preserving these lines our responsibility?
ReplyDeleteAlso the term "well-being" seems a little vague to me. Isn't the very purpose of germline engineering to allow for the best possible "well being" of the individual?
And maybe it would help to draw it back to the notion of freedom (maybe in terms of fate vs. free will). If "predetermining an individual's existence" suppresses their freedom, is freedom, in general, the ability to live an indeterminate existence?
-Sarah NC
Define therapy and enhancement. What do you mean by those two terms? How are these individuals being used as a means? Are they a means to create a stronger society? Isn't eliminating disease creating a stronger society also? Where is the line drawn and why?
ReplyDeleteArguably, isn't enhancing an individual's physical and mental capability just taking the logical next step from curing a disease? For that matter, what can we consider a disease for the purposes of ethics? Would Asperger's or other fairly minor mental syndromes be considered necessary to cure?
ReplyDeleteYour introduction flows particularly well, and does a good job of linking in societal concerns as a primary factor.
"To be kept into consideration"...Does that mean no to all Genetic engineering, or is it on a case to case basis. Wouldn't something like this either have to be universally yes or absolutely no to work in a society. In places where abortion is illegal, it is still practiced, but in horrible grim ways. I don't want to see back alley arm regrowth clinics. To me, an issue like this seems hard to cut down the middle. Some diseases are alright to cure, and some aren't? I totally see where yr coming from, and could kick my ass with this argument if you had a real good paper, but I think straddling the middle is a tough stance to take.
ReplyDeletecool!
ReplyDeleteI think you touched on something important when you said "we have stepped over the line of ethically acceptable and used these individuals as a means". It would be interesting for you to explain more what you mean by this.
I think this is really good. I think that you could explain who's responsibility it is to manage this. This may sound like a bad comment, what if there was a perfect world where people did not have to face diseases and such? Even if they did not choose it bad?
ReplyDeleteI meant, is it bad?
ReplyDeleteMaybe I'm just not one to be in the know, but what is Tay-Sachs?
ReplyDeleteElaborating on what you mean by using kids as means might clarify your statements for the reader.
Nicely done. I like how you are touching into predestination a big topic that you may or may not touch on in your final paper. I don't know how many people know what Tay-Sachs is. I only know from having taken bio
ReplyDelete