Germline gene therapy has developed a wide spread of opinions into the regards of its ethics with many very relevant positive and negative opinions being expressed amongst the breakthroughs occurring within its progress. There are lots of varying factors contributing towards these ethics which both overlap and contrast in many ways. The argument on the ethics of this therapy has been fuelled recently by many breakthroughs such as gene therapy restoring immunity in infants with a rare immunodeficiency disease. It is breakthroughs like this which develop and change the way in which this therapy is ethically viewed and alters the rate of progress in which it can develop over time.
Germline gene therapy has the aim of curing genetic illness, but who is able to decide which genetic illnesses are able to qualify for this therapy and what is constituted as a genetic illness or disability. Due to the cost of therapy discussed in my last chapter it is inevitable that not every person with a genetic illness will be deemed appropriate for therapy. So, if this is the case then this could lead to genetic illnesses having to be ranked and prioritised, making some genetic illnesses viewed as more severe than others. This prioritisation of these illnesses is subjective so clearly very unethical and has many negative implications that may come along with it. One of these implications is that the whole idea of genetic illnesses needing to be treated categorised leading into a larger problem of stigmatising genetic illnesses, leaving them to be seen as undesirable. This is obviously very unethical as all people should feel proud of who they are and not have their worth disregarded purely because of a genetic illness, and for this reason we can say that germline gene therapy could lead to unethical implications in the long run of its process.
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
Germline gene therapy is being used to tamper and bioengineer natural life as we know it meaning that we are becoming our own creators and tampering with unborn life. This allows no consent to the individual in which this process is being carried out on and many people view this as a breach in this individuals human rights. If this therapy is to go wrong and cause this unborn child potentially life-threatening harm, then this is something that child will have to live with and suffer with for the rest of their life. This issue of the breach of an individual’s human rights is a large ethical downside to the prospects of this therapy and can be seen as a very imminent problem faced by pioneers of germline gene therapy.
However, many people argue in contrast to the previous point and believe that actually this is not in breach of an individual’s human rights. The essence behind this opinion is the idea that no unborn child, regardless of whether they are a completely natural birth or ivf treatment or born through germline gene therapy, has any decision in the naturally occurring genetics they inherit, so why should this change for altering their genetics for the potential of them being better. So resultantly from viewing the therapy in this contrasting view many would argue that this therapy doesn’t violate and individuals’ human rights and in fact is purely helping them and giving them a life free of genetic illness.
Currently we see the use of germline gene therapy being used purely out of the innocence of curing genetic illness however in the future once this therapy has developed, this idea could change considerably. With the ability to alter the genetic code within organisms we are able to target specific genes to change the way they are expressed. Although this can be useful for a disease such as cystic fibrosis, we could see the use of this therapy to develop other genes such as height or hair colour, so being used to practically design babies. This unnecessary use of the therapy will mean nature will not be able to take its course whatsoever in the development of a child and the inheritance of paternal genes can be relatively removed from this child as a whole. This way of designing children can be seen as incredibly unethical as we are deciding what should be seen as desirable features and hence not allowing nature to take its course. Furthermore from this point a potential danger could be seen in this if this therapy is applied to the extreme. Countries could develop potential ‘super soldiers’ who have had their genetics altered by this process to enable them to be the best soldiers possible. This danger could then hence see this therapy potentially weaponised leading to the harm of many people.
Although many people disagree with the last point due to the ‘Gene Therapy Advisory Committee’. In 1933 when the prospect of gene therapy began becoming apparent this committee was set up. This committee was used to monitor the use of gene therapy to ensure that it was being used in an ethical and socially acceptable manner. For any form of gene therapy to occur it must first be requested to be approved by this committee. All requests to carry out any kind of gene therapy on humans must be approved by GTAC's Research Ethics Committee before it can go ahead which means that the use of this therapy is being used for research purposes and isn’t being abused in any sort of way. The forming of this committee ensures that this therapy would only be used ethically so means that this therapy will have to be seen as ethical to even have begun the process of being researched into. This takes into accounts the ethics around it so removes the problem of unethical treatment.
As discussed in chapter one, germline gene therapy has only a relatively low success rate and still has a large amount of side effects so this has caused many problems regarding the ethics. To put somebody through a very high-risk therapy which can cause life threatening side effects always has a lot of risks. And due to these risks, it can be said that putting somebody through this process without knowing for certain what may happen to them is not only unethical but also very irresponsible and a danger to life. And onwards from this if somebody is to pay the substantial fees to undergo this therapy for their new-born, and end up with not only no successful results but also no money, this can then be detrimental to the family making it very unethical to do. The financial aspects of this therapy overlap in many ways. a big ethical and financial reason against this therapy is the exclusivity that it causes between the richer upper class and the poorer working class. If not available through free health care only the richest individuals could afford this so we would begin to see the idea of genetic illnesses being associated with the poorer working class leading to further stigmatisation. This stigma towards the genetic illnesses seeing them as undesirable is a big ethical problem with this therapy and one which will be hard to overcome.
Many religious people have taken a stance on germline gene therapy. Within Christianity there are very different views on the use of gene therapy and the ethics of how it ties into their religious views. Some Christians believe that altering an individual's genes can be seen as an unnecessary use of medicine and that the science is acting as god. In these Christians opinion this is wrong to do and seen as unethical to them as god has the most power and humans shouldn’t be using our technology to manipulate gods will. However other Christians believe something different to this. Germline gene therapy has been seen to be able to cure and treat a wide range of genetic illnesses, this means that it successfully supports the stewardship within Christianity so is an acceptable ethical use of the therapy. this is yet again a very subjective matter among people within their religions so causes a large divide between many people on whether the use of this therapy is genuinely ethical or not and a breach of their devotion to religion.
Stuck on your essay?
