Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.
Introduction
Genetic enhancement means using genetic editing technologies to introduce changes into the genome of the fetus to achieve improvements in the physical or mental health of the future child. This process raises bioethical debates: both scientists and the community still cannot come to a conclusion about whether genetic enhancement is morally justified. This paper will discuss this process in terms of standards of normalcy, children’s “right to an open future,” and the difference between biological and social concepts of health. I will argue that I would use genetic enhancement for my child and would make it permissible if I were a healthcare provider or a policymaker, even though it would reinforce negative societal attitudes toward disability.
Discussion
If I could modify the fetus that would become my child, I would use this chance. So far, society has not evolved to the point where all people would have genuinely equal opportunities. Currently, standards of normalcy stipulate that normalcy is freedom from disability and physical and mental illnesses, although these attitudes can vary depending on the culture (Scull, 2022). Therefore, I would like my child to fit these standards because, this way, it will be easier for this child to live in this world. If I used this technology, I would find it morally acceptable to modify only health-related characteristics, such as the predisposition to serious illnesses, including Down syndrome and cancer. It would be morally unjustifiable to alter the child’s gender, eye color, and other health-related characteristics. As Scull (2022) notes, people often want to have children like themselves, which is why deaf people may want to have deaf children. I think that I am driven by the same logic when choosing to use genetic enhancement: since I do not have a physical or mental disability, I would like my child not to have it as well.
If I were a healthcare provider or a policymaker, I would feel slightly different. I would admit that some people want to leave the birth of their child to a chance, so I would not make genetic enhancement mandatory. Obliging individuals to genetically modify their children to prevent disability may strengthen negative societal attitudes toward disability (Scull, 2022). This is because there is a difference between the biological and social concepts of health. In biology, health is a lack of illness; in contrast, in sociology, health refers to individual and societal perceptions of health and illness. In other words, from a social perspective, individuals’ health focuses more on how society views individuals with a certain condition rather than on how these individuals feel. For example, even if an individual using a wheelchair can have a happy life, society may see this person as disabled and ill. In order to mitigate this societal disapproval of disability, policymakers should not make genetic enhancement mandatory.
There is another important aspect of genetic enhancement that I would need to address as a policymaker, namely, editing the genome to turn a healthy embryo into one with a disability. According to Scull (2022), this situation is morally distinct from leaving the birth of a child with a disability to a chance. The reason for this is that parents are morally prohibited from making their children worse off (Scull, 2022). Furthermore, the child’s “right to an open future” is involved in the issue of genetic enhancement. It is generally considered that children without disabilities have more life possibilities in the future. However, Scull (2022) argues that all people are constrained in some way, for example, by place, time, family, and other factors. Nevertheless, all other things being equal, people without disabilities have fewer opportunities than their counterparts without disabilities.
Conclusion
To sum up, attitudes toward genetic enhancement may vary depending on the social concept of health. If people view disability as a deviation from the standards of normalcy, they will prefer to use genetic enhancement to prevent disability in their children. As a healthcare provider or a policymaker, I would permit genetic enhancement to avoid disabilities but prohibit using it to add a disability to a healthy child.
Reference
Scully, J. L. (2022). Being disabled and contemplating disabled children. In J. M. Reynolds & C. Wieseler (Eds.), The disability bioethics reader (pp. 116-124). Routledge.
Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.