Following this major scientific and technological breakthrough, it raised the possibility that humans can be cloned using the same procedure‒ somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT). At present, however, human reproductive cloning remains a highly controversial issue. This is particularly due to the associated ethical considerations which include potential genetic damage to the clone, health risks to the mother, psychological harm to the clone and complex altered familial relationships. In this essay, we attempt to argue on why human reproductive cloning should not be banned. Human reproductive cloning, if successful, will allow infertile couples to have a genetically related child.
The certainty people get through genetic screening can also lead to discrimination in the society. When the privacy of the genetic information is not well preserved, the leak of information to people who have no rights to know may lead to the discrimination from the society to people with certain diseases. Discrimination can also occur when it comes to marriage; people who are certain to suffer from a disease, especially the hereditary ones, may have troubles in deciding whether or not to get married. This will also lead to the consideration of having offspring, as hereditary diseases are inherited from the parents to their offspring. Lastly, people who know the disease they have or will likely have may have anxiety, anger issue, as well as depression throughout their
Excessive power of autonomy changes a beneficent doctor-patient relationship to a client-consumer type relationship. I contend that this form of doctor-patient relationship will perpetuate the provision of inadvisable, harmful therapies. Without a beneficent objective, advances in technology and care provision of modern ICU would become ineffective for society. Care would be provided merely on request and provided excessively where it is unlikely to produce a meaningful benefit. I will argue that while the term “meaningful benefit” is open to discussion, it must consist of a significant component of medical judgement.
As technology advances, more things become possible. One of these things is genetically modifying a baby, this is very wrong and unethical.. Genetic modifying or genetic engineering is altering someone or something’s DNA to change a trait, or rewire the genetic code of someone. Scientists hope to cure diseases with this method, but doing this can lead to some harmful effects. Genetic engineering can lead to genetic defects, it limits genetic diversity, and it can be taken to very extreme levels. ` To start us off, genetically engineering a baby can be very unsafe for it and lead to genetic defects.
If you had an opportunity to prolong or even save your life, would you take it? For some, this might sound quite ludicrous as though a vivid scene from a fantasy. Whereas, it is just one possible example of how genetic engineering affects human development. Whether it is practiced to lengthen the lifespan of a living organism or make considerable improvements in agriculture, medicine or other fields, there are still lots of debates regarding its application in the real world landscape. Even so, prohibiting the successive evolution of genetic engineering is not a solution, and I do not agree that its further development should be banned.
Many ethical arguments against human cloning are focused around misguided judgments. Many individuals believe that these clones will have the same qualities/ identities as the individual cloned. Despite the fact that clone and cloned individual have the same genes, characteristics and identities are distinctive. Individuals believe that a clone is physically identical to the contributor and her conduct; however this is not genuine in light of the fact that despite the fact that there is a physical personality, living environment shapes a singular's continuous conduct and brain research. Many individuals believe that cloning will prompt loss of distinction inevitably, however individuals have their own particular identity cloned which identity is like those in which they were made.
Animal Testing: Beneficial to mankind or just plainly immoral? A controversial subject such as animal testing always has strong supporting evidence coming from both sides of the metaphorical “battlefield’’, but is there really a need to choose a side? Is it possible that there is a “right” and a “wrong” argument on this topic? Testing different products (albeit medical or cosmetic) is extremely difficult to do without a suitable test subject, because when testing products for humans it is often times frowned upon when e.g. new medicine for combatting cancer is tested on a live person.
Whether it be cloning pets to cloning the dairy cows that produce the most milk, people tend to feel strongly about whether or not cloning should be legal in the United States. Due to the unconfirmed nature of cloning outcomes, all animal cloning (particularly pet cloning) should be outlawed. This is a very common view on cloning held particularly by veterinarians; however, there are still some people that feel cloning should remain legal. There are many cons to cloning. The most important reason not to clone is that the wellbeing of the animals involved in the cloning is not top priority.
However, that line of thinking quickly clashes with the fact that with the help of exactly such testing, with the sacrifice of those animal lives, human lives are saved in return. Who are we to object to the expedition of finding a cure for someone’s son’s or daughter’s illness on the basis that it would be cruel toward some animals, which fact is not up for debate, it is indeed downright monstrous. And if one person had the conviction to deny themselves the cure, what gives them the right to forbid others from using it. In the end the simplest question presents itself, whether testing experimental drugs and treatments on humans is more sane and logical rather than animal testing, and then there is a line which might as well cease progress. A line which demands not to be crossed, the line that demands human lives be handled with caution and care, the line which will cause baby steps instead of strives
Evolution and change are going to be achieved if people are willing to accept changes. One must not base everything in religion, cultural belief, and superstitions in order to prevent isolations. Conservative type of behaviors may limit people’s action and will bring fear. To find cure and solution, people must not be afraid to open the box in order to bring development that can lead into a massive breakthrough. Rules and guidelines sometimes need to be ignored in producing a much greater outcome because many types of discoveries in the field of medicine were based on unethical practice.