Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Which genetic disorder
Which genetic disorder
Which genetic disorder
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Which genetic disorder
‘Saviour siblings’ are brothers and sisters, conceived in a petri dish and specifically selected, who have the capability to save the lives of existing ill siblings by donating needed biological material such as bone marrow. Saviour siblings are primarily created to treat and/or cure diseases passed down from the parents of the ill child, diseases known as genetic diseases/disorders. A number of genetic diseases, such as Fanconi anaemia , have limited treatment options that involve complex technology such as stem cell therapy and when donor searches are unsuccessful often the only option an ill child has is the creation of a saviour sibling. How and why saviour siblings are created is a very controversial topic that raises ethical questions. …show more content…
Most often saviour siblings are created when an existing child suffers from a genetic disease/disorder. Genes are responsible for the synthesis of proteins and proteins are the molecules that ultimately determine the structure of each body cell and that carry out vital life functions. Genetic diseases result from mutations in an individual’s DNA; when a gene is mutated and the protein produced can no longer carry out its normal function (or no protein is produced at all), a disorder or disease can result (Pearce, 2011). Genetic diseases are inherited when mutations occur in the germ cells/gametes – the cell involved in passing genetic information from generation to generation (U.S. National Library of Medicine, 2018). Mutations can also occur in the DNA of somatic cells, also resulting in genetic diseases. Examples of genetic diseases that can be inherited are cystic fibrosis or Fanconi anaemia; an example of a genetic disease that is not inherited is …show more content…
Dr Maggie Pearce says, “The only real option right now to fix genetic diseases is to use gene therapy. In gene therapy, the "good" version of a gene is introduced into a patient's DNA. The hope is that this healthy copy of the gene will overcome the problems of the disease version.” Treatment of genetic diseases does not aim to eliminate the mutated gene from each cell but rather introduces a correctly functioning version of the gene or counteracts the defect caused by the muted gene (Pearce,
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.
Often in the darkest time it is good to seek relief in the good of every situation. With the death of a Mother, Daughter, and contributing member in society, it may be hard to try and find any positivity to draw from. With the unfortunate and untimely death of Henrietta, came the opportunity of life to millions of others in society then, now, and for many years to come. The goal of medical research is to put society as a whole in a better place than it was at the day before. The use of HeLa cells in every developed country on the globe has made this objective much more achievable. The Lacks family led the way for the consent form being required for patients undergoing a medical procedure Although, there was no direct benefit to the family, raising many ethical considerations that must be
· genetics: occasionally the disease has a tendency to run in certain families (inherited or genetic predisposition), but this is not common.
Gene therapy is the application of the technique where the defect-causing "bad" genes are replaced by correct "good" genes. The idea of gene therapy is to treat the disease by correcting the "bad" DNA (Deoxyribonucleic acid) rather than the current me thod of providing drugs, or proteins not produced by the defective gene. Gene therapy addresses the problem first hand by directly working with the genetic information causing the disease. From the book Shaping Genes, Dr. Darryl Macer says "It is like f ixing a hole in the bucket, rather than trying to mop up the leaking water." There are two kinds of gene therapy, somatic cell gene therapy and germline gene therapy.
A genetic disorder is a sickness caused by one or many abnormalities or absentees in the genes or chromosomes. One interesting genetic disorder such as cancer, are found genetic but, can also be caused and affected by many by environmental factors such as being exposed to asbestos which may increase the risk of lung cancer and many other cancers. While on the other hand most disorders like Williams Syndrome are genetic and are primarily rare and only affect a limited amount of people about one in every several thousand. Because it is a genetic disorder that is estimated between 1 in 10,000 people worldwide, primarily caused by a micro-deletion on the seventh chromosome is what indicates the disorder being Williams Syndrome.
In this paper, I will argue that genetic therapies should be allowed for diseases and disabilities that cause individuals pain, shorter life spans, and noticeable disadvantages in life. I believe this because everyone deserves to have the most even starting place in life as possible. That is no being should be limited in their life due to diseases and disabilities that can be cured with genetic therapies. I will be basing my argument off the article by “Gene Therapies and the Pursuit of a Better Human” by Sara Goering. One objection to genetic therapies is that removing disabilities and diseases might cause humans to lose sympathy towards others and their fragility (332). However, I do not believe this because there are many other events and conditions in society that spark human compassion and sympathy towards others.
One of the most heated political battles in the United States in recent years has been over the morality of embryonic stem cell research. The embryonic stem cell debate has polarized the country into those who argue that such research holds promises of ending a great deal of human suffering and others who condemn such research as involving the abortion of a potential human life. If any answer to the ethical debate surrounding this particular aspect of stem cell research exists, it is a hazy one at best. The question facing many scientists and policymakers involved in embryonic stem cell research is, which is more valuable – the life of a human suffering from a potentially fatal illness or injury, or the life of human at one week of development? While many argue that embryonic stem cell research holds the potential of developing cures for a number of illnesses that affect many individuals, such research is performed at the cost of destroying a life and should therefore not be pursued.
Parker, Michael. "The Best Possible Child." Journal of Medical Ethics 33.5 (2007): 279-283. Web. 1 Apr 2011. .
Despite being magical of gene therapy, it is high-risk. Few people got benefits from it, and it has a low rate of success. Prior to the human trial, Batshaw and Wilson had done experiment on animals to ensure the safety. Over 20 experiments have been done on mice but only 12 of them survived at last (Sophia, M. and Kolehmainen, J.D., 2000). More seriously, complicating diseases, which can be more dangerous than genetic diseases, might set in during the treatment period. In December 200...
I believe that parents are not morally justified in having a child merely to provide life saving medical treatment to another child or family member, but that this does not mean that the creation of savior siblings is morally impermissible. By having a child solely to provide life saving medical treatment, you are treating this child merely as a means rather than an end to the individual child. By having the child solely as a means to save another, you are violating this savior sibling in that you are treating them as a source of spare parts that can be used by the sickly child in order to solely promote the prolonged life of the currently sick child. This view that having a child merely as a way to provide medical treatment does not consider the multitude of other avenues that this newborn child can take, and presupposes that the child will only be used for the single purpose of providing life saving medical treatment through use of stems cells or organ donation. What this view fails to consider is that these savior siblings are valued by families for so much more than just as a human bag of good cells and organs that can be used to save the life of the original child. Instead, these savior siblings can be valued as normal children themselves, in that they can be valued in the same way that any other child who is born is valued, yet at the same time they will also be able to provide life-saving treatment to their sibling. My view runs parallel to the view held by Claudia Mills who argues that it is acceptable to have a savior sibling, yet at the same time we can not have a child for purely instrumental motives, and instead should more so value the child for the intrinsic worth that they have. Mills presents her argument by puttin...
This report will outline the ethics of conceiving a child for the purpose of using cells, tissues or even organs to treat an existing child with a fatal disease. In outlining the ethics of saviour siblings, the question of whether it is ethical to conceive a child for the purpose of becoming a saviour will be explored.
The stress of genetic testing results, that may shorten your life or have no cure, will disrupt an individual physically and emotionally. Healthy people who carry the burden of having a life-threatening disease lack strong social support and coping skills. “The anxiety of living with the likelihood of one or more specific, chronic, debilitating disease create psychological burdens that outweigh the therapeutic potential of lifestyle changes or earlier treatment due to increased vigilance” (Kjono). Survivors guilt, or a mental condition experienced by those who have survived a catastrophic event that took the life of others’. For example, a brother or a sister who carry a gene alteration, like cancer, and one sibling has an increased potential for diagnosis, the other sibling will feel guilty for escaping the increased risk. Not only can a negative genetic testing result affect your well-being, but also your ability to obtain health and life insurance. “Genetic testing may permit a much more complete and refine...
Since its inception, gene therapy has captured the attention of the public and ethics disciplines as a therapeutic application of human genetic engineering. The latter, in particular, has lead to concerns about germline modification and questions about the distinction between therapy and enhancement. The development of the gene therapy field and its progress to the clinic has not been without controversy. Although initially considered as a promising approach for treating the genetic of disease, the field has attracted disappointment for failing to fulfil its potential. With the resolution of many of the barriers that restricted the progress of gene therapy and increasing reports of clinical success, it is now generally recognised that earlier expectations may have been premature.
One of these moral dilemmas is that genetic engineering changes the traditional dynamic that occurs between the parent and the offspring. This issue arose over the possibility of having a human embryo with three genetic parents which is now possible due to genetic engineering. The procedure in question “involves transplanting the chromosomes from a single-cell embryo or from an unfertilized egg into a donor egg or embryo from which the chromosomes have been removed”(Foht). The procedure itself is very useful for women with mitochondrial disorders but the issue involved with this is that the embryo would technically have three biological parents. There needs to be a real concern about “the way genetic engineering can alter the relationship between the generations from one of parents accepting the novelty and spontaneous uniqueness of their children to one where parents use biotechnology to choose and control the biological nature of their children”(Foht). There is a special relationship between children and their parents that may be disappearing very soon due to these techniques. Children could be born never truly knowing one of their genetic parents. If these procedures continue to prosper people will have to “accept arrangements that split apart the various biological and social aspects of parenthood, and that deliberately create
Genes are made of DNA – the code of life (Gene Therapy- The Great Debate!). The changes in genes may cause serious problems, which we called genetic disorder. In theory, the only method to cure genetic disorders is gene therapy, which basically means the replacement of genes in order to correct the loss or change in people’s DNA. Although gene therapy gives patients with genetic disorders a permanent cure, it is controversial because it has safety and efficacy problems, and raises ethical issues.