In many countries, it is illegal to create a designer baby, but in the United States, there is no law against it (Knoepfler, The Ethical Dilemma of Designer Babies, TedTalk). In his TedTalk, “The Ethical Dilemma of Designer Babies,” stem cell and genetics researcher, Paul Knoepfler, states the long-term risks of designer babies, describing it as “a kinder, gentler, positive eugenics.” He also touches on government involvement in this researcher; “I also think it 's not that unlikely that governments might start taking an interest in genetic modification. So for example our imagined GM Jenna child who is healthier, if there 's a generation that looks like they have lower healthcare costs, it 's possible that governments may start trying to compel their citizens to go the GM route.” I agree with many points Knoepfler makes in his TedTalk. I am not comfortable with the idea of creating designer babies- we do not know what else this could lead to. Knoepfler states, “We should not allow creating genetically modified people,because it 's just too dangerous and too unpredictable.” From the Natural Law perspective, it is interfering with the natural and beautiful process of creating life.
Many great things can be accomplished through genetic engineering, but scientific progress is being halted by the opposition 's use of arguments with questionable logic. Most notably is their fear of designer babies. The problem with designer babies is that complex beneficial traits such as height, strength, intelligence, and attractiveness aren’t determined by one gene, and are also dependent on many other variables that aren’t genetic. Some traits such as the shape of an earlobe, eye color, or an individual’s susceptibility to certain diseases are determined by a single gene, and that specific gene can be identified and isolated by scientists. Professor of translational epidemiology at Emory University, Cecile Janssens states, “Even when all genes and their complex interactions are completely understood, our ability to use gene editing for favorable traits will remain limited because human traits are just not genetic enough.” (Janssens).
Would you want the perfect child? The idea of having a parent directed genetically perfect generation is not a new, just look at the 1997 film Gattaca. Only, a superior society is good on paper, but not even close to ethical in real life. The process of genetic selection is a sci-fi fantasy which should not be translated into the real world. Genetic selection is new, unsupervised, and dangerous for the potential children who were their parent’s top choice in a laboratory.
Last, the doctors were not supposed to harm him, even though that they probably knew about the outcome of the surgery, written in the Belmont Report, states “Two general rules have been formulated as complementary expressions of beneficent actions in this sense: 1. Do not harm and 2. Maximize possible benefits and minimize possible harms.” (The Belmont Report 28) Doctors Nemur and Strauss do not follow these written expectations, and possible harms are not
In Gattaca, they did not tamper with environment or try to create a child with disadvantages. Scientist will take the egg and a sperm of parents who are ready to have children, then they would analyse and find the best child with the most desired characteristics. Both stories had control of fate but chose a different method of doing
A few are, there is a possibility or no need for vaccines, children would still be brought into the world, it would help men who could not produce visible sperm, women with premature menopause, people who have lost gonads, and people who have been involuntarily sterilised. This could also help people who are gay or lesbian couples that would like to have their own children that are related to them. It could help single individuals who do not wish to have a partner although it may not be exactly safe. The creator of multiplex described it as a generational shortcut. Another scientist is coming up the the in vitro
I presume that it would be ethically correct to provide a compensation to Henrietta Lacks descendants. I am aware that Henrietta Lacks cells enabled scientist to encounter new discoveries such as the polio vaccine and other. However, the benefits of her cells does not outweigh the fact that Lacks family deserved some sort of compensation. It would be ethically correct because the financial reward could have accommodated the needs of her family. In the article “Family of Henrietta Lacks gains some control” states, “When scientists and doctors crave the key to the genetic code that unlocked treatments and vaccines, two family members will have a seat at the table where the decisions are made” (Curtis).
Loria, Kevin describes some of the more positive outcomes to designer babies. "Hughes asks: If a parent were to come along and want to change the genome of their child "and the goal of this is to make sure a kid doesn 't have depression or doesn 't end up obese" — interesting in theory, but likely not actually possible given the complex web of environmental and genetic causes behind those conditions — "on what ground does the state then step in?" His argument is that we don 't stop people from passing on what we consider "bad" genetic codes, things that might make a person 's life harder, so we shouldn 't stop people from trying to provide someone with a "good" genetic code. Hughes doesn 't think we 're ready to make those sorts of changes yet; he says "it 'd be perfectly reasonable for the government to prohibit genetically modifying human embryos until it 's adequately tested and shown to be safe — still quite a high bar to pass. But he thinks that genetically enhanced humans in the form of designer babies are going to happen."
Even though parents cannot predict the life span of their children lives they can make mindful decision to enforce the procedures in protecting their lives child’s life. Vaccinations are in place to save children’s lives from life threatening diseases such as polio and etcetera. Parents should make sure that their children are receiving vaccinations to save their lives
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