Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Positive effects of medical technology
Thesis on gene therapy
Thesis on gene therapy
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The fact that there have been many advancements in biomedical technology over the years have given us the ability to cure and prevent diseases that have once devastated the human population. These breakthroughs have allowed people to live longer and healthier lives, yet others believe that it runs the risk of “playing God” and that such matters should be left into the hands of a higher power. Today, this ethical debate still continues to raise questions on whether these scientific breakthroughs are morally acceptable. While I support the use of scientific breakthroughs, I believe that it should only be used for human benefit to cure those who are suffering from cancer. This approach seems more reasonable than using this technology to choose one’s eye color or keep someone on life support just because it is something that can be done, whether or not that is acceptable or not.
To start with, scientific breakthroughs are necessary to improve human health and longevity. With the advancements in biotechnology there comes the opportunity to cure diseases that once devastated the population which allows for a healthier generation of people. For example, many vaccinations for diseases such as H1N1 have been popular in order to avoid being caught with the virus. Vaccinations have been used for years because of their ability to prevent diseases from spreading where they normally would have infected hundreds to thousands of people otherwise. This leads not only to a healthier majority of people but also healthier children/future generations thanks to the vaccinations. Additionally, such scientific breakthroughs help improve the lives of children who are born prematurely, such as myself. Without the advanced technology that was available a...
... middle of paper ...
... is simply only a living cell, much like a blood cell or cancer cell. Going by this logic, acquiring stem cells from a human embryo is not an act of murder any more than you are preventing a cancer cell from developing.
As a final point, with the advances of using biomedical technology, scientists have the ability to cure cancer and prolong human life where they would’ve died if such advancements have not been made. The use of such technology should be used when the benefit outweighs the cost such as using it to benefit humanity and not just to choose if one’s child has blue eyes or brown eyes. I personally support the scientific breakthroughs that have been made over the recent years, yet, these advancements should only be used to cure/prevent diseases rather than to decide on one’s genes or to keep an elderly person on life support simply because it’s possible.
Merriam Webster’s Encyclopedia of Literature highlights Frankenstein as the work of Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley, published in 1818, and it brought into the Western world one of its best known monsters. Elements of gothic romance and science fiction help in telling the story of young Swiss scientist Victor Frankenstein, as he creates a horrible monster by putting together limbs and veins, leading to destruction and his later regret. The creature is left alone in the world, even by his own creator, for his hideous appearance, and through watching humans he learns their ways of living. Haunting Victor due to his loneliness, he forcefully makes Victor agree to make him a female companion, but Victor’s regret and misery enables him to tear up his
This is because I do not see the human embryo as being alive, a view even supported by the Church of Scotland, a group against therapeutic cloning, as they are “unsure about when life begins” in regards to the embryo. As the embryo is not alive, “killing” it to benefit a large number of people who would no longer suffer is morally acceptable. It would also prevent any suffering from anything similar ever again, again justifying using embryos for therapeutic cloning; a contrasting view to this would be the view of the Roman Catholic Church who believe that the human embryo is a part of God, and therefore harming the embryo is harming God. Therefore they completely disallow the collection of STEM cells from embryos and ignore the positive consequences that are a result of using STEM cells from
There has been some ethical issues surrounding the development and use of technology, that would consist of some advancements, such as “when in vitro fertilization is applied in medical practice and leads to the production of spare embryos, the moral question is what to do with these embryos” (Shi & Singh, 2008, p. 182). As for ethical dilemmas that comes into play with “gene mapping of humans, genetic cloning, stem cell research, and others areas of growing interest to scientist” (Shi & Singh, 2008, p. 182). “Life support technology raises serious ethical issues, especially in medical decisions regarding continuation or cessation of mechanical support, particularly when a patient exists in a permanent vegetative state” (Shi & Singh, 2008, p. 182). Health care budgets are limited throughout this world, making it hard for advancements yet even harder to develop the advancements with restraints. Which brings us back to the “social, ethical, and legal constraints, public and private insurers face the problem deciding whether or not to cover novel treatments” 188. Similarly what was mentioned before the decisions about “new reproductive techniques such as intracytoplasmic sperm injection in vitro fertilization (ICSIIVF), new molecular genetics predictive tests for hereditary breast cancer, and the newer drugs such as sildenafil (Viagra) for sexual dysfunction” (Giacomini, 2005).
What people do privately, when they are acting alone, can and will effect others’ lives in ways they do not expect. The effects may very well not be their intended purpose, but innocents always suffer from others’ actions. This is most clearly defined in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein. Victor, by keeping his sins to himself, destroyed the lives of those he loved; by keeping quiet time and time again, he sealed the fate of his and their horrible endings.
Late one night a woman is driving home on the freeway, she’s hit head on by a drunk driver and killed. The man is charged with two accounts of murder; the woman, and her four-week-old embryo inside her. By law, everyone human being is guaranteed rights of life; born or unborn they are equal. The same law should be enforced concerning human embryonic stem cell research. Dr. James A. Thomson discovered stem cells in 1998 and they’ve intrigued scientist ever since. The stem cells themselves are derived from a three to four day old cluster of cells called a blastocyst and they are so coveted because they are pluripotent, meaning they can differentiate into any type of cell in the human body. Although embryonic stem cells show amazing potential to cure various disease such as cancer, congestive heart failure, Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s disease, muscular dystrophies, and more. The methods by which they are obtained is controversial. Research on embryonic stem cells is unethical, unnecessary, and purely homicide.
...ns of a morally questionable nature. It is necessary that our practices remain ethical and that we uphold the value of a human life, as this is the cornerstone of human society. Embryonic stem cell research is one such operation that forces scientists, policy makers, and the larger society to define what constitutes a human life and to find an answer to the crucial question: Is it morally acceptable to violate the rights of a human life for the for the sake of medical progress?
Frankenstein defied human boundaries when he created the monster and because of this not only his life, but the lives of others have also shifted, this has caused their lives to spiral into an unjustified conclusion. Curiosity was the main cause of him learning how to create such a thing, his lack of caring for the thing that he created led to his undoing. His motivation for creating life, comes from the fact that he lost someone dear to him. Although Victor was young when his mother died, it had serious effects on the way he viewed life and maybe even himself. Once you take on the father role you have to stick to it, otherwise creating life
In Shelley's Frankenstein, it's interesting to use the text to ask the question, whose interest's lie at the heart of science? Why is Victor Frankenstein motivated to plunge the questions that bringing life to inanimate matter can bring? Victor Frankenstein's life was destroyed because of an obsession with the power to create life where none had been before. The monster he created could be seen as a representation of all those who are wronged in the selfish name of science. We can use Shelley's book to draw parallels in our modern society, and show that there is a danger in the impersonal relationship that science creates between the scientist and his work. It seems to me that Shelley was saying that when science is done merely on the basis of discovery without thought to the affect that the experimentation can have, we risk endangering everything we hold dear.
native town to be the world, than he who aspires to become greater than his
Frankenstein and Science & nbsp; & nbsp; Science is the knowledge gained by a systematic study, knowledge which then becomes facts or principles. In the systematic study the first step is observation, the second step hypothesis, the third step experimentation to test the hypothesis, and lastly the conclusion whether or not the hypothesis holds true. These steps have been ingrained into every student of science, as the basic pathway to scientific discovery. This pathway does not hold as to the good or evil intention of the experiment. Though, there are always repercussions of scientific experiments.
Scientific Progress as Seen in Frankenstein In the novel 'Frankenstein', scientific progress is seen as immoral
There are many authors that use a well-known historical figure to contrast the protagonist of their novel. One great author that uses this method of comparing a renowned person to a fictional character is Mary Wollstonecraft Shelly. In her novel Frankenstein, she uses the subtitle “The Modern Prometheus.” Prometheus, the Greek god, and Victor Frankenstein, the creator of the Monster, have contrasting qualities and behaviors that allow them to go against God’s will and attempt to create life.
Mary Shelley’s Sci-Fi horror known as Frankenstein or The Modern Prometheus has become a classic novel in history. This dark tale touches on every subject of humanity. One of Shelley’s biggest themes is a big question in the science world we live in, nearly 200 years after publication of the book. That question being can science go too far, is there a line that shouldn’t be crossed? Shelley uses the plot of her story to serve as a warning to readers to be careful when dealing with this imaginary line. Shelley’s tale of a mad scientist and the repercussions he suffers from his experiment is a timeless story. As technology is being pushed to the brink of morality in the modern day, this question has become a huge part of the modern world of science we are living in.
Mary Shelley's novel Frankenstein cannot merely be read as a literary work of the early 19th century. It represents the workings of young Shelley's mind. Further, it represents the vast scientific discoveries of the time, combined with Mary Shelley's intuitive perception of science. She views science as a powerful entity, but also recognizes the dangers if uncontrolled. Shelley demonstrates this fear in the book as science drives Victor Frankenstein to create his monster. In the end, it is also his use of science that inevitably becomes his demise.
Which is more powerful science or nature? Author Mary Shelley shows us exactly what could happen when science and nature are pitted against each other in her novel “Frankenstein Or, The Modern Prometheus”. In the novel the life of a scientist named Victor Frankenstein spirals out of control after the death of his mother. He consequently becomes dangerously obsessed with death. His mission becomes to go against nature in order to figure out the science of life. In his journey of giving a “torrent of light into our dark world” (Shelley, 61) Victor Frankenstein is faced with the consequences going against nature. I believe that Mary Shelley was against science that went over the bounds set by nature.