Hey Everyone,
As indicated from my previous posts, there isn’t a great deal of PGD supporters out there. Frankly, all technologies and techniques associated with reproductive biology and genetic engineering raise a lot of ethical concerns. But why are so many people against the notion of finding out ways to eliminate even more diseases to have a perfectly healthy child? Let’s look at some of the arguments of those opponents to try to see why they are so reluctant to welcome this futuristic trend.
Playing God. You will almost always come across the argument which says that interfering with the genetic code is against nature and that we are basically assuming God’s role. Humans have no right to change another human being’s DNA, and especially not for enhancement purposes.
Eugenics. According to the Oxford Dictionary, eugenics is “the science of improving a population by controlled breeding to increase the occurrence of desirable heritable characteristics.” PGD is used to detect defects and then discard the embryos that include undesirable traits. This could lead to creating a homogenized society, or a master race, similar to the idea Adolf Hitler had in mind. Variation, however, allows for innovation. Opponents argue that there are some amazing and inspiring people who happen to be disabled but contribute a lot to science and other fields. For instance, Stephen Hawking who is paralyzed due to amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) or Albert Einstein who had learning disabilities. These disabilities didn’t stop neither from becoming one of the successful physicists in the world and forming the theory of relativity, respectively. PGD and other genetic engineering technologies are therefore seen as a discrimination against the disabled community.
Discrimination against the poor. Not only is PGD extremely time consuming, but it is also a highly expensive procedure. It is therefore only accessible to wealthy couples. As a consequence, only the poor will have to suffer.
It is unsafe. The viral vectors that are used to bring the DNA into the cell may cause lethal immune responses or even tumors. While this argument may be valid today, it is probably a technical problem that will eventually be circumvented. Another safety argument is that when transgenes become inserted into the genome, they may disrupt functional genes and cause mutations. This has been seen during trials in mice. There is still no 100 % guarantee that this technology works on everyone equally. There is also a chance of misdiagnosis, about a 20 % chance of damaging the embryo during the biopsy process, and other yet unknown complications.
Pressure. Some women's health advocates worry that genetic engineering could create new pressures for the mother. Genetic enhancement could be subtly or coercively suggested by a partner, but also by third party groups with financial incentives such as insurance companies, a doctor, a social circle, current fashions, biotech marketers or mass media advertisers. It is not implausible that women could lose the ability to make genetic decisions about their own baby if the medical establishment or national government decided to regulate genetic engineering in some way.
Policy. What is a “medical necessity”? What is considered a “serious genetic disorder”? That’s when medical opinions vary and so a policy cannot be made to guarantee an equal distribution of PGD.
Technologies that involve changing DNA will always be full of controversy. Do you feel that you now understand both sides to it? Honestly, I do.
No comments:
Post a Comment