Medical Ethics For People

Gattaca the 1997 film that is set in a genetically “perfect” society, Jurassic World and the dangerous genetically modified Indominus Rex, or the 1932 novel Brave New World which explored the idea of babies conceived in jars and children genetically designed for a particular purpose and social rank. Science fiction is constructed in a way to seem so far off into the future that it is hard to believe that it will ever happen. However, the major leaps and bounds within the past ten years from IVF to genome editing have made this seemingly distant society a near reality.

Genome editing technology has evolved to reach the new and most successful technique “Crispr/Cas9”. This editing technique allows for unfavorable genes to be spliced out for their greater predecessors to eliminate all possibilities of inheriting a disease and can also edit other inherited traits.This advancement has too many potential negative consequences to continue the pursuit of genetically modified children, genome-editing needs to be made illegal to preserve the natural phenomenon that is life and conception and not let it be adulterated by human interference.

Scientists do not yet know enough about the genome-editing and the possible medical complications that can come from it. Being that this is a fairly new concept, the alteration of germline production is a virtually unknown territory when it comes down to having a genetically fertilized egg placed back inside of the womb. This is an important note because scientists do not know if their predicted results will stand when actually carried out on a viable embryo in a real human womb.

Get quality help now

Doctor Jennifer

Verified

Proficient in: Gattaca

5 (893)

“ Thank you so much for accepting my assignment the night before it was due. I look forward to working with you moving forward ”

+84 relevant experts are online

Hire writer

A man from New York had a genetic form of dystonia, most of the males in his family suffer from the same disease. When him and his wife decided to have kids they decided to have her embryos genetically tested and discovered that there was a 30% chance of their children developing the disease. If this couple had chosen to act upon the news and edit out this gene in the embryo, it would be a very feasible possibility that something could go awry and raise the question of who is at fault and how it went wrong. Before this, when a child was born with a disease or deformity it was just by chance and a natural mix of genes.

Now with altered genes, doctors would be at fault. The Crispr complex is sometimes unpredictable, it has the possibility to “change something at the wrong position on the DNA molecule… creat[ing] new genetic problems for the embryo”. This causes the potential for gene-splicing to not go as planned. With the Missouri and South Dakota law that says “life begins at conception,” doctors shouldn’t be permitted to tamper with something so fragile as an embryo in the event that they were to make a mistake and damage human life. Eradicating these inherited diseases opens up the potential for collateral damage. Most genes are not as simple as a one-to-one connection, most in fact are an interlocking web of connected genes. With the intent to repair one gene it can lead to “new genetic problems” located on other genes. The use of this technology to discontinue certain diseases can lead to a possible “lack of CCR5 protein [that] could make the babies susceptible to other diseases” allowing the opportunity for new diseases to rise to the surface in the genes of these altered embryos.

Medical interactions are expensive, especially the ones that are not covered by insurance. If and when genome editing becomes a mainstream practice it will leave the privileged and their children with an advantage in the world. One can draw parallels between IVF (in vitro-fertilization) and genome editing. IVF alone can be extremely expensive being that it is not covered by insurance, leading to believe that genome-editing will be the same. “IVF in the US average[s] over $20,000 for each try, and testing can add $10,000 more”. This high cost would only allow those in a “certain section of society” to benefit from the effects and put those who could not afford it at a disadvantage. That gap in privilege could also expand to a genetic gap in society. In America, there is a distinct upper and lower class economically but this new gene-editing technology would create another distinct class now genetically and would continue the trend of the worsened health status of the underprivileged.

This technology created with the intent to eradicate hereditary diseases can also be used to edit any genetic trait including hair and eye color, strength, intelligence, height, and improved athletic ability leading to the production of “designer babies” born to those who can afford it. The science fiction film Gattaca shows a child playing a complex piano piece only the child has six fingers on each hand, he was genetically engineered to be capable of playing this advanced piece of music. This science-fiction film is now a real possibility in our society especially in the fact of having a greater chance of success due to the access of this gene-editing technology. “Designer children is privatized eugenics” it is no longer trying to uplift humanity or entire societies, but just trying to gain a competitive edge. Some argue in favor of this eugenic cleansing that if they can have the healthiest children possible then why would we not utilize the technology. If science were to allow this it would reweight the genetic lottery in favor of the more privileged, giving them more opportunities or a healthier life. What is considered positive and negative of this technology is subjective to where you lie on the scale of global privilege.

The splicing of genes is causing an ethical debate. Many scientists are wondering if it is morally sound to alter the coming generations without their consent. This debate can be tied to many other debates in history regarding consent, including the battle that Henrietta Lacks and her family faced. Henrietta Lacks was just a cancer patient at Johns Hopkins and without her or her family’s knowledge, arguably had one of the greatest contributions to modern medicine. This was all without her consent. Dr. George Gey took a sample of Henrietta’s cells without her consent, found that he could make them multiply and divide and provide more cells. Gey sent them to his connections throughout the medical community and since billions of dollars have been made from her cells. If she had consented her family may have gotten a share of the money and would no longer live in poverty. Much of the Lacks family still has a strong hatred for the medical professionals at Johns Hopkins.

The unborn do not have rights over their bodies meaning a parent’s choice to genetically alter their embryo is without the consent of their future child, just like the lack of importance relating to consent from Henrietta Lacks due to her race, gender, and status in society. Genome-editing technology allows humans to take evolution into their own hands. This needs to be prevented because our society strives for success. This drives the need for genetic “perfection”, which can lead to the unknown effects of genome-editing, skewing the scale of the genetic lottery, and creating a genetic upper class. As a society, we need to hold back from marching into the Brave New World by setting up legal barriers to ensure that our current world will not become the plot of any science fiction work. Regardless of the potential outcomes, it is unnatural to be able to control genetics and the process needs to be illegal to keep the fruit of life precious.