Ethical Border For Research Essay

If one was to ask the question, “What do ethics mean to you?” These responses would be likely to follow. “Ethics is what my feelings tell me is right or wrong.” “Ethics have to do with my religious beliefs.” “Being ethical means following the laws.” Those replies would be expected. Many do relate ethics with their feelings, but it is not a matter of following feelings. In fact, we will often times stray from living ethically if we were guided by our feelings. Although religions urge high ethical standards, if ethics were limited to religion, ethics would only apply to religious people. Following the law is not the same as being ethical. Ethical standards may be incorporated in the law, but laws, won’t always conform to

Have you ever wondered what it would be like if everyone was smart, athletic, and beautiful? Well, recently, scientists have been experimenting with human DNA to make a “better” person. Mostly all of these embryos died off, and those who lived were the same as your average human (OI) . I do not believe it is morally right to use human DNA and genes to alter the appearance and abilities of people. Although people may argue otherwise, I know that this is not right.

If we know the genomes sequence that makes a person develop cancer later in life, the lab can basically manipulate the gene to make sure the DNA doesn't have the cancer causing sequence. It was would also allow people to create an organism with the desired traits, so that organism can take those traits and pass them down. That would also change the way psychologists study the brain and peoples behaviors, furthermore they would also be able to link behavior to a persons DNA sequence (Steele, 2002). I think gene manipulation is okay only under the right circumstances, if you have no other options left. If you know you are a carrier of a certain disease and you know your child will inherit that disease, you should be able to change the sequence to make sure your child won’t get sick, and will remain healthy. There is also instances when child is born with a disease and they may need some sort of transplant, if neither of the parents are a match, at that point it is possible to make a child who is a genetic match to the sick child, being able to provide them with a kidney, liver, or even bone marrow. I do believe gene manipulation can be used for a lot of good things, it can ultimately help save lives. This process would only be unethical if the results weren't going to somehow help the unborn organism. Just because someone wants a baby to look or think a certain way, doesn't mean

In recent years genetic modification has been advancing. Genetic modification is when a living organism has been altered to a specific state of characteristics. So far scientist has made one attempt to modify genes from an embryo recently. Whether they were successful or not is question unanswered yet. Gene modification can be great and all. However, is it right to modify genes? Apparently, the population agrees to modify genes since there has been licenses of approval for gene modification. If Society cared about gene modification, then there would be signs of disapproval of gene modification. However, this is viewed morally wrong in my point of view. The pros of modifying genes are that defeating diseases, potential to live longer, genetic diseases, and able to select character traits of babies. The cons of modifying genes are failures on the way to perfecting genetic modification, genetic modification babies can have more greater problems, very expensive, and when does it stop?

Autonomy – The ideal of self-determination is the basis for autonomy. It is important that a patient be allowed to decide what should be done to his or her own body. In other words, nobody else has the right to assert their power over another. Likewise, a physician should be allowed to decide not to perform a procedure if doing so would conflict with his or her values. In the Cruzan case, Nancy’s autonomy by way of her parents’ substituted judgment was overridden in favor of the State of Missouri’s policy to preserve life. Although the Supreme Court did not deny that Nancy had the right to refuse nutrition/hydration, there was not enough clear and convincing evidence to know that refusal was what Nancy truly

When having a baby, the physical appearance cannot be determined until birth, but what if advancements in technology could allow you to do so? Dr. James Hughes suggests the idea of allowing parents to have the option to choose their kids physical attributes. In order for this to take place, a child’s DNA would have to be mutated in the early months of conception. To many people this may seem superficial, but the roots of this idea could go much deeper. Changing a child’s DNA early in its life could allow for the possibility to prevent diseases such as cancer and Huntington’s disease. This process known as gene therapy and consists different treatments such as “replacing a mutated gene that cause disease with a healthy copy of a gene, knocking out a mutated gene that is functioning improperly, or introducing a new gene to help fight against diseases” (Gene Therapy). This discovery is not only limited to unborn babies, but would be also performed for adults too. Even though some scientist and doctors have the ability to do this the question always arises, should they do this? Changing the DNA of a child or even an adult is a huge controversial topic that several organizations fight over. So where is the fine line between altering DNA ethical and unethical?

Genetic engineering is the figurehead of the ethical concerns of scientists in the 21st century. Nothing is more engrossed with criticism and dislike than the idea of altering the baseline for living organisms. Many people are skeptical of genetic engineering due to the versatility it exhibits. A scientist could use a genetic editing tool, such as CRISPR, to remove the genes for a hereditary disease in an embryo, but they could also utilize it to alter the physical characteristics of a human baby. This thought provoked the flood gates of ethics to unleash a multitude of unanswered questions and concerns about the usage and further development of genetic engineering. The field of genetic engineering is

There are many ethical issues in the healthcare field. These issues range from insurance coverage, senior care, childhood immunizations, beneficence, abortion, medicinal marijuana, honesty and medical research (Fritzsche, D., 2004). Today we will discuss the ethical concerns in only one aspect of heath care and that topic is research (Benatar, S., 2000). Medical research is necessary in order to make strides in health care, introduce new medications, to discover new symptoms and disorders and to test new treatment options for current medical problems. Students of medicine, universities and pharmaceutical companies conduct this research primarily. Much of this research is time consuming and costly, therefore obtaining funding is not

Genetic modification is a scientific advancement with lots of possibilities. The most compelling argument for genetic engineering is to improve the health of society. Simple genetic mutations can easily affect one’s health. If there are effective and efficient methods to cure this, shouldn’t we do so? Or should we object to this? On what grounds? When it is, after all, the logical next step to medical advancement. It has the potential to save thousands of people from diseased lives and early death. Objections are often based on the fact that it is “unnatural” or the fear of the unknown. But so are IVF and organ transplants. It is difficult to predict with a definite certainty of what will occur in the future as a result of the actions of the present. But when has that ever stopped us? Shouldn’t we have the right to eliminate genetic diseases and push human capabilities through genetic engineering? But at what point should we draw a line on genetic modification?

Imagine this: You just got back from your procedure to alter your genes for brown hair and green eyes because you didn 't want to pass them on to your child. Everyone is saying that having brown hair and green eyes is unattractive now and they 're unwanted traits for future generations. Three months later the “fad” changes and people begin to think that having green eyes won 't be so bad after all and that they 're actually unique. Now you 're left with passing on the Version 1.0 gene pool to your children while everyone else who waited could have children with green eyes. This is the future of unregulated germ-line gene therapy. Do we really want to live in a world where this is allowed? The thought of people changing their genes just to fit in and be desirable is unimaginable. While somatic cell gene therapy brings many advantages to the treatment of diseases and the quality of life, using germ-line gene therapy to genetically improve, alter, or fabricate human beings is unethical and should be regulated against.

Gene therapy is not socially right because by performing this treatment, you are going against the charter of rights and freedom. In the constitution Act, one of the rules listed is “Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability” (Constitution, 1982). Those who want to prevent any disorders that could lessen their child’s intellectual or physical ability are being discriminatory towards those who have the same disorder but were not treated prior to their birth. This method of treatment is also morally wrong because scientists would be changing the code of life. Scientists are disrupting the human systems by inserting genes and changing what the future would be like. Those who are religious argue that scientists are going against God’s will and the life He gave to the children. If this treatment persists, it would strain the economy because the process is extremely expensive. It would also cost a lot of money for the parents who want their children to be treated. Since this treatment is so expensive, those who are not doing well financially would not be able to get the treatment. If this treatment becomes official, many of those who work in the medical field or

The process is aesthetic in nature and unnatural. This carries more weight than the fact that an individual can eradicate certain genetic diseases (Wivel&Walters, 1993).Through the process of genetic modification, doctors can even change the sex of a fetus as long as their clients pay for it. That is very unnatural. As the technology advances, it will be possible to change many features of a fetus like its eye colors and even develop certain desirable traits in them like a good personality, height, skin color, hair color, academic abilities, athletic skills, and so forth. The ethical aspect of such developments is questionable. The born child will be unnatural (Kogan, Doherty,&Gitschier, 1987). Thus, the morality of the technology is not acceptable. Moreover, since the science is imperfect, the desired traits in a child may fail, and the parents would develop resentments towards the child in future. It is also worrying how a genetically modified kid would behave once it learns that it is not natural like everyone

Altering a person’s genes create an ethical issue that needs to be thought out. Altering a person’s genes could help prevent disease but without laws being in place for the extent of using this alteration, parents would be playing god with genetics (scientists seek ban). Not only would parents be playing god, but the most fundamental issue is how we will view humanity in the future and “whether we are going to take the dramatic step of modifying our own germline and in a sense take control of our genetic destiny” said George Q. Daley who is a stem cell expert at Boson Children’s hospital. (Scientists seek ban). Even though scientist want to know more about the genes ethics is important to them. Volti talks about how if this is available to

“But when the sun was setting, all those who had people sick with various diseases brought them to him. By laying his hands on each one of them, he cured them.” (Luke 4:20) Could genetic engineering be the cure they are looking for today? Genetic engineering is “the deliberate modification of the characteristics of an organism by manipulating its genetic material.” (Google) The most common genetic disorders are Down Syndrome, Huntington’s Disease, Sickle Cell Disease, and Hemophilia. Modifying genes can help eliminate the disorders as well as resulting in a potential to live longer and healthier. But, is it right? Is it ethical? Can people go ‘too far’? Although genetic engineering has some benefits, the risks are even higher. The result of

Because gene therapy involves changing the human body, it comes with its set of ethical concerns, which are not answered fully nor so rapidly. Until such scientific and technological advancements, people dealt with their genetic inequality (if faced with one) as their reality, as part of their life until they died. But with the advent of gene therapy, people may have a choice to deal with their genetic inequalities, even though it may not threaten their health or way of life. Dealing with genetic inequalities that are not dangerous to a person’s health follows a eugenic aura. It questions the normality of a person and categorizes genetic inequalities as disabilities. Also, it treats the latter as diseases needed to be cured and/or prevented.