There is a lot of controversy over the uses of PGD, and it has been banned in several countries because some people believe it is unethical and “playing god.” PGD does not genetically alter embryos in any way. It simply tests the embryos for a genetic disease and then with the results, a healthy embryo is implanted and the rest are donated to research, or destroyed. In no way is it creating or changing anyone. The healthy embryo that is implanted is still one of the parent’s children. The parents simply chose not to develop their other unhealthy embryos.
This has been a main controversy because so many people suffered without giving their consent to let the doctors and scientists conduct these experiments in the name of science. These past experimentations have raised many questions on whether or not data should be used to better the medical field’s knowledge. My opinion on the matter is that we shouldn’t use the data that was collected because the data is unethical. It encourages doctors and scientists to perform unethical procedures that have no medical value to its name and can be considered unmoral in today’s society. The data obtained is unethical because it goes against the Hippocratic Oath that physicians take and swear to practice medicine ethically and honestly which is something that the Nazi doctors didn’t do.
No two people are the same and their reaction to medication differs. The reason for this is found in the genome of an organism. Knowing the differences will play a key role in a person’s health. Personalized medicine has some potential benefits. If scientists can discover what role your genes play in how you will react to drugs, then they can provide you the best medication for you earlier in the process.
In the case of “Jane Doe”, a kidney transplant patient, complete disclosure of risks about her procedure was not given. This failure to inform the patient led to her contracting not only hepatitis, but also HIV. The report claims, “Gift of Hope Organ & Tissue Donor Network in Elmhurst and the University of Chicago both knew the kidney donor was high-risk and did not inform the patient” (Vaughn 152). The physicians did not inform her of the risks of her new kidney transplant. Without this knowledge, Jane Doe gave what she believed was her informed consent for the surgery, which consequently violated her right to self-determination and did her extreme harm rather than good.
His parents believe that Anthony would not want to be kept alive in such a condition. The hospital, with the support of his parents, applied for a court order allowing him to ‘die with dignity’. As a result he became the first patient in English legal history to be allowed to die by the courts through the withdrawal of life –prolonging treatment – hydration and artificial nutrition – which he did in 1993.” In my opinion I am against euthanasia, so I think that letting someone die is morally wrong. Even though it lets someone die peacefully, as a Christian it is against God’s law. Many Christians express their views against Euthanasia because of their belief in the Sanctity of Life, which declares no killing is acceptable or justifiable.
After six months of this experiment the women finally gave birth and twelve days later were asked to bring their newborns for tests to be done on them. Researchers had the babies respond to the different kinds of sounds with a spike. The studies showed once again that the babies who had mothers who exercised throughout their pregnancy had more of a noticeable response to the sounds. It is still unclear to Scientists how a mother that exercises has an effect on the brain development of their baby, but they assume that the mother generates a variety of chemicals which affects it. In conclusion healthy mothers will have a better chance of having healthier and more brain developed babies if they exercise even the
Babies by Design By Ahmad Theibich July 16, 2012 BABIES BY DESIGN Outline Thesis: Designer baby, a new medical invention has led to much debate in society where many affirm that changing the traits of a baby is a good thing while opponents refuse it believing it is a bad thing. I- The invention of designer baby is a good thing. A- Physical 1- Appearance 2- Health B- Mental 1- IQ 2- Memory C- Social 1- Education 2- Mortality rate II- The invention of designer baby is a bad thing. A- Physical 1- Disease 2- Mutation B- Ethical 1- Religion a- Christianity b- Islam 2- Freedom of choice C- Social 1- Social gap 2- Resemblance BABIES BY DESIGN Since the beginning of humanity, human beings started to search and invent new things to make their lives easier. During the 19th century, the world had witnessed several huge medical revolutions; patients who previously died from specific diseases are surviving now because of vaccination and new treatments.
The concept of cloning became popular with the creation of Dolly the sheep. Dolly is an example of reproductive cloning but there are two other types of cloning used around the world: therapeutic and DNA. Although all forms of cloning, reproductive, DNA, and therapeutic can be effective, only therapeutic cloning of humans and animals should be allowed because of its greater benefits of eliminating organ donation problems and because of its lower risks of killing a possible life. The supporters for human cloning and reproductive cloning don’t recognize the dangers that come with a clone. Their support for reproductive and human cloning is because of pure awe at the innovative ideas, not for actual scientific purpose (Kilner).
Surrogacy is a controversial ethical dilemma as some people, such as religious groups, the American National Coalition against surrogacy and various others believe that it is unethical to give away a child. They also believe that we should not play or manipulate with fertilisation and the creation of life. This topic relates to the fertile question “Should humanity control diversity" a lot, as the implementation of a manipulated egg in a different mother, intern chances and creates more biodiversity within humanity. It creates an opportunity for infertile couples to have their own children, and change the biodiversity of humanity. Surrogacy also alters the variety of human life in a given area, such as where there are large numbers of surrogate mothers and also the life in the area where the child is brought up.
While the arguments against animal testing are numerous, it still has a tremendous amount of benefit towards humans as a species. One cannot just look at the life expectancy as a measure of how well people live, but instead, we must also look at the quality of life. Should animal testing be eliminated, or, as the article suggests, put under the same ethical code towards the treatment of humans, we will experience a sharp decline in lifespan, and a decrease in the quality of life. The loss of animal testing would result in a sharp decline of lifespan in humans. The one thing most people understand about viruses and bacteria is that they evolve at an extremely rapid pace, leading to what can be called an evolutionary “arms race” between humanity and the diseases we contract.