Persuasive case

The benefits of biotechnology, medicine, gene therapy and other treatments can not be ignored. This is evident in the now ability to manage and successfully treat diseases and deformities that plague humanity, ensuring the survival of the human race through scourges like polio, smallpox, yellow fever among others. Therapeutic genetic manipulation offers those with deformities a chance at a normal life. Medical interventions to cure or prevent illness or restore the injured to health does not desecrate nature but honours it (cited in Sandel, 2004).

Genetic enhancement on the other hand is an attempt at perfection. A state (perfection) that varies among individuals due to preference. It is not wise to consider genetic enhancement as foolproof. A good example is in the case of Dolly the cloned sheep that died an untimely death. This is as a result of some of the abnormalities that such genetic enhancements contain. The expected results of enhancement are not always the observed product, Outcomes in patients hardly ever live up to the exaggerated sales speech. The use of steroids to enhance performance has been seen to result in mood alterations leading to violent behaviour. This leads us to ask ourselves what if the effects of genetic enhancement, physical and psychological, are bad and irreversible Note that just because no immediate flaws observed does not eliminate the probability of their occurrence in the future.

A form of sex discrimination is seen among couples who show a conscience preference for one sex over another. This procedure normally favours male offspring consequently there is an upsurge of the male population. It is theorised that such an imbalance would have positive effects as seen in the following statement Some speculate that societies with substantially more men than women will be less stable, more violent, and more prone to crime or war.

Genetic Enhancement will result in the segregation of people based on their abilities or lack of them. This possibly will result in discrimination. Resulting in individuals feeling obligated to have enhancements just to fit in and not necessarily to be better in a particular field. This can be seen in Sandels statement Athletes become responsible for acquiring, or failing to acquire, the talents that will help their teams win (cited in Sandel, 2004).

Parents who select specific genetic characteristics for their offspring are merely trying to live another life through someone else. They instill specific traits that they (and not the child) desire. According to this argument, genetic enhancements for musical talent, say, or athletic prowess, would point children toward particular choices, and so designer children would never be fully free, as a result designer children are compelled to pursue their predisposed talents denying them an open future.

Genetic enhancements are expensive to undertake. Funding for their experimental stages and latter implementation requires the use of many resources. It should be noted that the public is still sceptical about such procedures. This is evident through the following report However a survey of the history of public health interventions indicates that people, at least in this country, are reluctant to take the words of doctors on faith. Therefore the resources used in such exports should be channelled to other areas like therapeutic genetic manipulation or areas with public confidence.
It is often assumed that the powers of enhancement we now possess arose as an inadvertent by-product of biomedical progressthe genetic revolution came, so to speak, to cure disease, and stayed to tempt us with the prospect of enhancing our performance, designing our children, and perfecting our nature. In conclusion genetic enhancement is not morally permissible. Genetic manipulation should be used only in therapeutic use and not to enhance that which is not flawed.


Post a Comment