Eugenics is the branch of science that is concerned with producing children that are fine. The bone of contention lies in what we interpret this objective of coming up with these ‘fine’ offspring. On one camp lie those that insist that eugenics is only ethically and morally correct if it is used to produce children who are as fine as would normally be expected. On the other camp lies those who insist that the term ‘fine’ is not restricted to what is expected under normal circumstances, but also encompasses what is the best possible version that can be produced. The primary link between gene therapy and eugenics lies in the determination of some ethically contentious issues. To start with, we must consider whether the introduction of genetic material or drugs into a cell with the aim of curing a disease presents an ethical issue. Another issue is if there is what ethical distinction lies between ventures to repair some inherent genetic defect and ventures that involve enhancing performance in an already healthy, normal gene.
A harmed condition is one that occurs when, with the right tools, information, and ability at a person’s disposal, the said person deliberately refuses to take corrective measures or take action that would avoid the disability, injury or the ensuing incapacity. Or, for example, “if a pregnant mother knew that it affected her fetus and knew also she could remove the condition by simple dietary adjustment and then fail to do so would be to knowingly harm her child.” (J. Harris, 1993, p. 180). Gene therapy provides tools that make it possible to cure or even protect people from diseases or environmental impurities such as radiation. It is entirely okay, and fairly obvious, to use gene therapy to cure a disease. What is contentious is when gene therapy is used when there is no disease present currently or when gene therapy is used to prevent the possibility of occurrence of the disease and thus effectively, and by definition, making the person healthier than ‘normal’ people are.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Morality is a big issue in gene therapy and eugenics. At the heart of the moral continuum lies the questions ‘is it morally correct, or required, for me to perform a certain action?’ and ‘do ethics necessitate I perform a certain action?’ Is a person morally obligated to take measures that, to a scientifically reasonable degree, ensure that their child is born healthy and not disabled or should a person, in the absence of signs that indicate potential disease or disability, not take any steps to secure the health and well-being of their offspring? These questions have the underlying presumption that disability is an adverse condition that if it were optional would be avoided or remedied.
It is my opinion that it would be morally reprehensible for a parent, provided with the necessary tools and abilities, to deny their child cures made available by medical science. This would constitute a conscious injury to the child because, by a child, is incapable of making such a decision. Given that nobody, if given a choice, would choose to be disabled, it is the moral responsibility of the parent to make decisions that are in the best interest of the child. In this context, such a decision would be to take advantage of all available and accessible medical technologies. According to J. Harris, disabilities
Harris’ objection to the view that only when removing dysfunction is it morally acceptable to use gene therapy lies innate dynamism of health and medical advances. “It is normal now, for example, to be protected against tetanus, the continued provision of such protection is not merely permissive” (J. Harris, 1993, p. 181). Harris also says “There is, in short, no moral difference between attempts to cure dysfunction and attempts to enhance function where the enhancement protects life or health.” (J. Harris, p.184). I agree with his view because given the opportunity to improve a person’s health, refusing to do so only because other people are as healthy does not make sense.
I do not believe widespread use of gene therapy, and genetic enhancement would not lead to such dire consequences as mentioned in the question. I believe this is catastrophizing. Wanton use of gene therapy, due to the very nature of wantonness, would have undesirable consequences for us all.
References
"Can We Cure Genetic Diseases Without Slipping Into Eugenics? | Center For Genetics And Society". Geneticsandsociety.Org , 2018, https://www.geneticsandsociety.org/article/can-we-cure-genetic-diseases-without-slipping-eugenics. Accessed 6 Apr 2018 .
"Can We Cure Genetic Diseases Without Slipping Into Eugenics?". The Nation , 2018, https://www.thenation.com/article/can-we-cure-genetic-diseases-without-slipping-into-eugenics/. Accessed 6 Apr 2018.
HARRIS, JOHN. "IS GENE THERAPY A FORM OF EUGENICS?". Bioethics , vol 7, no. 2-3, 1993, pp. 178-187. Wiley-Blackwell , doi:10.1111/j.1467-8519.1993.tb00283.x.
