Human can be needed to thrive but can sometimes only make certain situations worse or not much better than before. Like in my evidence “The ethical justification of biomedical research involving human subjects is the prospect of discovering new ways of benefiting people's health”. Which is basically stating that we perform human experimentation to benefit ourselves and others. Science-based medicine depends upon human experimentation. Scientists can do the most fantastic translational research in the world.
This essay has illustrated the benefits which are having the chance of removing defective genes and also having higher healing rate even for serious injuries. Whilst the disadvantages would include facing ethical issues as well as premature aging happening on cloned people. It is clarified that the technology of human cloning would have an inevitable dramatic impact on the society. For a varieties of reasons declared, a huge number of people believed that human cloning is against the nature and also violating human rights. Hence, this kind of disagreement should be solved by condemning improper operations of cloning for an example, criticizing the act of scientists who are abusing their position to clone human without reasonable purposes and having ‘scientific research’ as their excuse.
Patients who are terminally ill and do not want to live occupies the beds and resources that could be used for people who want to live and get better. If someone has expressed a desire to die, it is beneficial to stop waste resources on that person and use it on someone to improve their life because they want and have the desire to live. Legalizing euthanasia would not only be beneficial for the ill patients; in fact it would also be beneficial for future generations to either not have a particular disease or increase the quality level care for the future patients of the particular disease. Distributing resources to further research diseases to help other ill patients is extremely beneficial. In addition, if the patient who wishes to die by euthanasia is an organ donator and the organs are healthy, the organs can save several lives.
Legalizing physician assisted suicide can not only be a solution to the shortage of vital organs that are needed, but can also give terminally ill patients the opportunity to save another person’s life. According to a journal article written by Michael Cook, “Organ donation after euthanasia enables those who do not wish to remain alive to prolong the lives of those who do, (BioEdge). By giving patients who no longer have the will to live this option they are able to die knowing that they saved another person. Not only do they get this chance, but the organs recovered from them are more viable for transplants. This is because, with the preparation of death by physician assisted suicide, a doctor can save the healthy vital organs before they are left unviable.
As Susan Aldridge illustrates in her article “Human Cloning”, therapeutic cloning is the creation of an embryo which will later develop into tissues and cells for the purpose of research. On the contrary, reproductive cloning is the creation of an embryo - for the purpose of reproduction - which will later “develop to term rather than being harvested for its cells” (Aldridge). While researchers and scientists rarely admit as much, the resources being used, the time being spent, and the groups of people being affected by human cloning weigh far more than the result and uses of it; therefore, any researches and procedures correlating with human cloning must be prohibited. First of all, human cloning has yet to be perfected into a procedure that can be adopted for practical uses, and the reason for that is due to its extremely difficult process which requires countless number of trials. According to Wesley J. Smith, author of the article “If
gel electrophoresis, sequencing cloning (into a plasmid) etc. Identifying pathogens Limitations: There is a possibility that a mutation can occur which will also be replicated during PCR. The DNA sequence for the target region should be known prior to PCR so it is not useful for regions in which the sequence is unknown. Ethical issues Some people are of the opinion that their DNA can be acquired by others easily. Also many believe that genetic engineering is unethical as manipulating DNA is unnatural.
Scientists manipulating with genes is equivalent to playing with nature or playing god. Changing and controlling human nature could be possible in the future with genetic engineering. IVF treatments involve discarding or freezing of unwanted embryos, raising a list of ethical issues. Whether disposing embryos is a form of abortion, killing an innocent child when it can be developed into a human being once it is inserted into a uterus. Are doctors unintentionally killing more lives just to save one life?
It also states, "Vaccinations have very low risk factors and are created to cure diseases not cause more. Scientists are evaluating vaccines and are making them more efficient for people to use and are limiting the risk factors that worries many parents" (Mercadal). Parents are concerned about vaccinations damaging their bodies and taking a toll on them where it could seriously cause problems in the time
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.
Many believe gene editing offers huge benefits and changes to our lives. On the other hand, people tend to have ethical questions when concerning gene editing. People worry that gene editing is going to offset the natural way of life. The conflict between potential and ethics draws the question; Is gene editing a cure and a beginning, or a beginning with a curse? With more research and studies, gene editing could potentially eliminate conditions and diseases.