Human Biology 1090-Taking Sides 12
Biology 1090: Chapter 7-8 Taking Sides
Danielle L Korgenski
2/17/13
Throughout history
man has attempted to change not only themselves, but the world around them
through genetic enhancement techniques. A woman who is unhappy with her
features or an athlete who desires to be stronger, faster or fitter has looked
to genetic enhancement to “improve” what they had acquired naturally through
the gene pool. We have found ways to genetically enhance flowers and plants and
even animals eliminating what is said to be undesirable for something better,
prettier, or more convenient.
While many believe genetic enhancement is the answer to enhancing
future generations or allowing people to choose many characteristics such as eye
color and sex of their unborn child, assignment of specific characteristics and
talents, just as many believe that
the practice is unnatural and has disastrous consequences.
Political Philosopher Michael J Sandel provides a strong argument that
genetic enhancement is morally questionable regardless of whether it is used to
benefit an individual or their children. He shares the belief of many that human
life is essentially a gift and no one should exert he power to control or master
it. Physician Howard Tractman argues that genetic enhancement is a way to
improve one’s overall health and
wellness.
After reading the
arguments presented by both professionals either for or against genetic
enhancement I feel my personal views favor those of the Political philosopher.
If we look to the past it is easy to see that the practice of genetic
enhancement has time and time again showed to have disastrous results. For each
advancement such as the discovery of new practices and procedures, or new drugs
on the market to treat more diseases than before there also arise new problems
and complications. The results for patients often fall short of the exaggerated
claims and often clinical trials lead to additional questions with regard to a
particular products efficiency and performance. The longer a patient is allowed
to live the greater the increase for many diseases that present more commonly
among the elderly. Greater instances of cancer, cardio and pulmonary
complications and dementia are the end result. While some genetic enhancements
allow for a temporary extension of life or an opportunity to enhance the
quality of life, there are far greater negative aspects. While many people are
only searching to improve their lives what they fail to take into account is
how these actions will impact their lives as a whole in the long run. All
actions have adverse reactions. The fact that most patients are only interested
in improving their health and fail to “question or concern themselves with the
morality of the health care provider,” coupled with the fact that “physicians
rarely question why patients desire to get better as long as they follow their
instructions and balance the risks with the benefits when making health care
decisions” shows greatly how misconceptions regarding genetic enhancement
occur.
What constitutes a trait or behavior that warrants genetic
enhancement? “What constitutes a disease and a simple willingness to just
adequately take care of one’s self from sheer lack of motivation or laziness,”
is a good question proposed by the thesis author. How should diseases be
classified in reference to what should be treated with genetic enhancement and
what should not and who makes the decision? The fact is that as long as there
are conditions that plague us and our loved ones, dementia, heart disease,
cancer, there will be someone else searching for a resolution. There will
always be people questioning one form of proven therapy such as radiation for
another method such as diet and homeopathic treatment. Because of this great
variation among people it is unwise to assume that all patients will want to
undergo genetic enhancement. Using the practice to improve health can have
positive effects there are just as many negative effects to consider as well.
The side of the argument that explains why genetic enhancement is unacceptable
shares a more ethical point of view. The argument for genetic enhancement fails
to take into consideration that as humans we should embrace ourselves for what
we were blessed with. If everyone has the opportunity to genetically enhance
their character and physical attributes how long will it be before everyone is a
great singer, fast runner and super model? What will become of all the
characteristics that make us special and different from everyone else?
Danielle L Korgenski
2/17/13
Throughout history
man has attempted to change not only themselves, but the world around them
through genetic enhancement techniques. A woman who is unhappy with her
features or an athlete who desires to be stronger, faster or fitter has looked
to genetic enhancement to “improve” what they had acquired naturally through
the gene pool. We have found ways to genetically enhance flowers and plants and
even animals eliminating what is said to be undesirable for something better,
prettier, or more convenient.
While many believe genetic enhancement is the answer to enhancing
future generations or allowing people to choose many characteristics such as eye
color and sex of their unborn child, assignment of specific characteristics and
talents, just as many believe that
the practice is unnatural and has disastrous consequences.
Political Philosopher Michael J Sandel provides a strong argument that
genetic enhancement is morally questionable regardless of whether it is used to
benefit an individual or their children. He shares the belief of many that human
life is essentially a gift and no one should exert he power to control or master
it. Physician Howard Tractman argues that genetic enhancement is a way to
improve one’s overall health and
wellness.
After reading the
arguments presented by both professionals either for or against genetic
enhancement I feel my personal views favor those of the Political philosopher.
If we look to the past it is easy to see that the practice of genetic
enhancement has time and time again showed to have disastrous results. For each
advancement such as the discovery of new practices and procedures, or new drugs
on the market to treat more diseases than before there also arise new problems
and complications. The results for patients often fall short of the exaggerated
claims and often clinical trials lead to additional questions with regard to a
particular products efficiency and performance. The longer a patient is allowed
to live the greater the increase for many diseases that present more commonly
among the elderly. Greater instances of cancer, cardio and pulmonary
complications and dementia are the end result. While some genetic enhancements
allow for a temporary extension of life or an opportunity to enhance the
quality of life, there are far greater negative aspects. While many people are
only searching to improve their lives what they fail to take into account is
how these actions will impact their lives as a whole in the long run. All
actions have adverse reactions. The fact that most patients are only interested
in improving their health and fail to “question or concern themselves with the
morality of the health care provider,” coupled with the fact that “physicians
rarely question why patients desire to get better as long as they follow their
instructions and balance the risks with the benefits when making health care
decisions” shows greatly how misconceptions regarding genetic enhancement
occur.
What constitutes a trait or behavior that warrants genetic
enhancement? “What constitutes a disease and a simple willingness to just
adequately take care of one’s self from sheer lack of motivation or laziness,”
is a good question proposed by the thesis author. How should diseases be
classified in reference to what should be treated with genetic enhancement and
what should not and who makes the decision? The fact is that as long as there
are conditions that plague us and our loved ones, dementia, heart disease,
cancer, there will be someone else searching for a resolution. There will
always be people questioning one form of proven therapy such as radiation for
another method such as diet and homeopathic treatment. Because of this great
variation among people it is unwise to assume that all patients will want to
undergo genetic enhancement. Using the practice to improve health can have
positive effects there are just as many negative effects to consider as well.
The side of the argument that explains why genetic enhancement is unacceptable
shares a more ethical point of view. The argument for genetic enhancement fails
to take into consideration that as humans we should embrace ourselves for what
we were blessed with. If everyone has the opportunity to genetically enhance
their character and physical attributes how long will it be before everyone is a
great singer, fast runner and super model? What will become of all the
characteristics that make us special and different from everyone else?