Scientists claim to develop ways of treatment and cures, but it is yet uncertain to what extend this will have (positive) impact on the illness. It is natural for people to get ill. I believe that it is the way life goes. When applying the use of stem cell research, it is as if each person becomes similar through the use of science. This process might become successful in several years from now, but that is still to be seen.
It is like a “potential medical miracle worker.” Gene therapy will produce a good gene for a person and control the bad gene. There are two main types of gene therapy. The first gene therapy is called “Somatic gene therapy.” Somatic gene therapy will treat the patient by using a good gene and putting it in the person’s cells. Even with the somatic gene therapy a person’s future child will likely not have these genes because they will not get passed on. The second gene therapy is called “Germ-line gene therapy.” Germ-line gene therapy will improve the genes in the egg or sperm cells.
Jessica Boddy emphasizes the importance of gene testing and early screenings as they could result in early discovery and lead to better results and less treatment, she states, “The test results could help guide treatment, as well as future efforts to prevent more cancer.” In addition, Boddy encourages gene testing and awareness of the potential inheritance of harmful mutations. She implores, “BRCA mutations have a 1-in-2 chance of being passed down from parent to child, a patient carrying BRCA1 or BRCA2 is likely to pass it down to further generations as well”(Boddy). Ultimately, any of these reasons could influence an individual's decision to pursue or dismiss genetic testing. One must weigh their potential risk with their psychological resilience to determine if the information a BRCA gene test may provide would benefit their
People continue to believe that vaccination cause autism because of the way our mind is set up. Our mind is set up to come with solution to a new problem based on the past information related to the current problem or based on previous experience, sometimes this can be good, however it can lead us to ignore the other side of the coin, and make conclusion based on little or no information, and refuse to change our beliefs after find out more information. We don’t want to admit that we are wrong. We look for evidences to support our own false beliefs instead of changing our beliefs. Michael Spector is a professor of pediatrics at the Harvard school of public health.
Any type of disorder, disease, or syndrome should be accepted to undergo gene therapy. Doing so would indeed change or save someone 's life. Changing just one simple gene could cure a disease such as cystic fibrosis. People who have never lost a family member or friend to a disease don 't realize how hard it is. That could easily be changed with gene therapy in the future.
But on the other hand, Genetic Engineering can possibly lead “Playing God” to being able to create Humans “designer babies” inevitably going against morals of various societies. “However, many fears that genetic manipulation may lead to unethical abuses--"playing God" with human life or weeding out "bad" genes through eugenics”
“Those who believe an embryo isn’t a human person see no problem in cloning embryos and taking their stem cells even though doing so kills them.” The outcome of trying to help cure a disease is millions of dead people. Is it worth it? The outcome of human cloning gives people too much power; they can regulate who is in the world and pretty soon, things like what characteristics they possess. I believe that medicine is a gift from God that we can use to try to save people and I think the means of therapeutic cloning are good, but we shouldn’t commit an immoral act like taking someone’s life to try to save another. Cloning is just trying to take God’s place, claiming His perfection as ours.
This movement declares mandatory vaccines unconstitutional and vaccinations overall as the cause of autism. Unfortunately, the anti-vaccination movement is becoming increasingly popular due to individuals’ unfounded fears and imagined consequences associated with the idea of purposely inserting a disease into one’s body. However, despite one’s beliefs, vaccines are essential not only to a person’s well-being, but to the health of those around them. Mandatory vaccinations do not cause autism; rather, they save lives while upholding values of
The thought of improving the human race by manipulating who is allowed to breed can either be appalling or compelling. There are a few appealing aspects to the act of eugenics. If eugenics were applied, the world could potentially see a decrease in disease, a rise in intelligence, and heightened physical aesthetic in humans. But, ethically it crosses many boundaries that have prevented this idea from going into world-wide effect in the past. A benefit to eugenics is it could lead to the reduction of genetic diseases in the gene pool.
This is because I think that the ethical and moral issues outweigh the benefits. It is true that it allows people to have the opportunity to determine if their children are prone to getting a certain disease however, at the same time judging the life of someone who is not even born is unethical. If genetic screening is allowed, it will result in parents trying to make the ideal and perfect babies otherwise known as “designer babies.” Due to this, it will lead to decreased genetic diversity for example, Down syndrome and Autism. People with these kind of diseases tend to make the world more compassionate and humane. If we were to remove these diseases we will not be able to preserve diversity.
Even though this research might become useful in the medical field, scientists should stop embryonic research because it is not productive, and there are better ways to get the desired results. Also, it is not moral to use and destroy embryos in this way. Embryonic stem cell research may become a very useful study for medical research. Embryonic stem cells have several properties
Physicians were blamed for the absence of this very feeling and non adherence to the main principles of humanism. That is why, there is a point of view that dehumanization could have the positive impact on the whole sphere. However, at the same time some specialists underline the fact that "the current emphasis on speed, the efficient completion of tasks and quantitative measuring undermine the ethics, tradition and practice of care" (de Zulueta, 2013, 87). With this in mind, it is possible to admit the ambivalent character of the issue of dehumanization. It obviously results from the change of the attitude towards some traditional values such as care and close relations with patients.