Hot Spots in Medicine:
- Use of CRISPR gene editing on embryos
Recently a Chinese scientist was the first to use CRISPR gene editing on a human embryo that went on to be born. He altered the genome of twin girls and replanted them in the mother and they were just born. The change he made caused the girls to be resistant to HIV. The change also may have increased their intelligence as well as their susceptibility to other diseases. The ethics of this are deep and very human. Should we use the technologies we have to alter creation itself? I think to a certain extent this is ok, but it could very easily get out of hand. That makes drawing any kind of line very difficult which is why I would lean towards not genetically altering human embryos at all.
The debate about whether doctor-facilitated suicide should be allowed has gone on for quite some time, but there is still heat there. Questions surround whether the patient is healthy otherwise, wishes of family members, costs of alternative treatments, and more. To me, I think people have the right to refuse treatment, especially if the closest family members are ok with it. Prolonging life against someone's will sounds like torture. I am more on the fence about whether doctors should actually administer euthanasia or just allow the disease to progress. Being between taking a life and prolonging pain is like being between a rock and a hard place.
This is a topic that I definitely have a strong opinion on. All hard evidence shows the benefits of vaccination. Parents who refuse to vaccinate their children are putting their children and others around them at high risk of serious, even deadly, diseases. Should that be enforced? What about those who refuse for religious reasons? These are questions that test me further.
Gene editing is the most worrying to me. This new technology has the potential to completely rewrite the face of science and of humanity. Even the "happy" ending to this is unappealing to me. Genetically perfect individuals walking around among those too poor to afford edits sounds like something out of a nightmarish movie. In addition, we have found viruses and bacteria resistant to every antibiotic we throw at them, so I am sure there will be bugs that adapt to even the perfected individuals. This science is dangerous and unnecessary.
The issue of child vaccination really frustrates me, especially since the whole anti-vaccinator movement started from an article that lied about its data. It's crazy to me how that movement has perpetuated among some parents even after the data showing harmful effects of vaccines was revealed to be unfounded. I've increasingly seen more posts and articles about the overwhelming importance of vaccines, though I'm not sure if or how much the pro-vaccine movement has changed anti-vaxxers' minds. It could be interesting to explore the role media has played in all this.
ReplyDeleteGene editing is a terrifying and fascinating idea. It's potential to help humanity is amazing, but there are so many places it could go wrong. At the end of the day, if you could create perfection in each human, free of sickness and disease, always in perfect health, humanity would lose its humanity. Emotion would fade from lack of pain and we would forget so quick the joy of being human.
ReplyDeleteThese are all topics that fit into what we have discussed in class this semester. For example, the hesitance/disbelief in vaccination could be seen as similar to the enlightenment period from the perspective of an anti-vaxxer. It is interesting to think of the impact perspective can have on understanding of rhetorical topics in history.
ReplyDelete