100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Gene Therapy & Ethics | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Well, isn't life support playing God? I say, if God gave us the capacity to do it, its alright. We could also use gene therapy to keep children from being born with defects and diseases. There is an oxymoron there. So many people claim that we are 'playing God' when we pull the plug. But gee whiz, we had already decided to 'play God' when we first plugged it in! We've already made the choice to 'play God'. The only question that remains to be seen now is how well we can play that role. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Chazster
on
Sun 08/24/08 07:32 PM
|
|
Well, isn't life support playing God? I say, if God gave us the capacity to do it, its alright. We could also use gene therapy to keep children from being born with defects and diseases. There is an oxymoron there. So many people claim that we are 'playing God' when we pull the plug. But gee whiz, we had already decided to 'play God' when we first plugged it in! We've already made the choice to 'play God'. The only question that remains to be seen now is how well we can play that role. Exactly abra. Is not the medication I take for UC playing God? I mean if I didn't take it I would eventually die because I would eventually not be able to eat and either die from that or internal bleeding. Lots of other people take meds for conditions that keep them from dieing as well. I don't really see a difference. If it helps humanity it's good. Sorry abra I can't help myself.. "Abra, Abracadabra, I want to reach out and grab ya" 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Is somebody playing grab ass with Abra in here?
 JB
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Great thread and I almost missed it. Once again, as I see in almost all of these threads, I read "privilege" between the lines.
Those who agree with the path that genetics is taking,seem to automatically assume that "they" would reap the benefits of such technology. Consider this idea again. Health care STILL won't pay for the implant of a tooth that is lost. Health care often won't pay for extended hospitalization, and health care is quickly becoming the main determinant of physician and hospital care altogether. Do you expect health care to be in the equation of genetic technology? Many insurance companies won't cover extensive furtilization processes, why would they cover genetic technology? So who will have access to it? Keep in mind that there are those who have the power to SET THE PRICE. Who can afford, who can't, is what we have to look forward to. So philisophically, the question of "should we continue on the path to enlightened genetic technology?" must contain ALL moral implications, and not just "does it go against nature?" It's been mentioned, already how much power there is to be had in "owning" or "ruling over" such technology. In that vein we must also consider the social and political side of the philosophy question. But that won't happen, not until technology and knowledge become equal and the reality that only the elite will benefit from it. That's always the way it is, where there is a possiblity of power, there is a line of those waiting to grab it. ULTIMATELY: We need to stop questioning that which is imminent and begin the process of legalities, entitlements and keeping such technology in the public domain and AWAY from the pharmaceutical industry, the businessmen and the politicians. NOW IS THE TIME for public intervention. NOW is the time for public funding with the understanding, by THOSE FUNDED, that all knowledge in this area is not for sale and is to remain in the public domain. Why do we always wait until it's too late - we are more intelligent and more up to date than ever before in history. When Pres. Bush suspended federal funding of stem cell research - the PUBLIC stepped up to the plate and massive amounts of funding have been made - BUT the "public" forgot to put the conditions on and there are those labratories and scientists, today in that field,who are beholding to the unscrupulous nature that lurks in greedy depths of man. LIVE - LEARN! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oh, by the way - Hi everyone.
I'm sorry, I didn't mean to sound so preachy, I do apologise, it's just that I hold both stem cell research and genetic technology in such high regard. Oh, and by the way, there is not surity as to why we age, but there are some theories and they are being researched (at the genetic level). At the moment it's doubtful that this inheritance can be effectively altered. There seems to be a question of links, for example: consider a flow chart If this then that, if that does not exist than go here, if here is not in tact, go there. The genome project in no way identifies all the possible flow charting. No one is even trying to chart such things, if they aren't related to the problem at hand. If you seek a cure for genetic disease, then find the gene that causes and, obviously, chart the course. But why chart the course for age, when there is still disease? Age is not a concern here. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
wouldee
on
Wed 08/27/08 05:05 PM
|
|
well, isn't that just America.
 legislating captive markets. patenting privileged information and calling it intellectual property for sale to the highest bidder. The international community does this as well. It is apparent theat the whole world wants to own knowledge and information and rent or sell it or at best, license it's use. It is the new economy. And the speculators trade the futures of the shareholders and control the value by hedging all sides to any bet made. Pragmatically, nothing is going to change that. It is too legal the way it is. It won't make itself illegal.  we will just have to hope for the best from these kinds of opportunities of such elitist proportion. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, Wouldee, if anyone was truely intrested they might look up information regarding the comments I made and they just might find that the 'INTERNATION' stem cell markets are the ones who have attempted to keep stem cell research information open to public domain.
However, it seems that Americans have a different idea. Go figure! Hopefully, those scientists who study stem cell reasearch and genetics will do so with the idea that this research IS OF MAN and should remain publicly accessible in the doman of all humanity. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not that i want to see anyone die especially young people, but even if someone said they had a pill that if i took it i would be like 18 again and live for 500 yrs would i do so.
I speak for no one but myself, but i ask myself what would the world be like if everyone lived to be even 200 yrs old as some scientist in these feilds are suggesting is not that far away from happening. I try to look at the consequences of actions before they happen as much as possible, not always successful, but i try. so all i say is try not to look at it from the perspective of what it might do in a good or bad sense for the individual - but how it will affect the entire planet. how many more babies would we have if people were to be able to reproduce til they were let's say 150 yrs old, and how many more of their babies would do the same and how much more room does the planet have for life and food and all else? our quest for a better and longer life for those of us now or even later generations just might become our end, it's at least worth contemplating or taking into consideration i think. then again if you find this not to be the case your welcome to ignore it, just my thoughts. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The present ban on stem cell research only prohibits new lines from publicly funded sources. Private research is still able to do as it will. That is potentially a "good" road-block that Shrub setup... publicly funded science often comes with corruption, tainted results, and limited support, once it has been shown that the applications are not as amazing as the information itself.
I don't know why people get their panties in a knot over whether or not you can custom tailor the appearance or prowess of yourself or your child. What do the tastes of someone else have to do with you? The idea everyone is going to suddenly fall under the sway of eugenics and racial supremacy because of this technology is pure nonsense. People have already been under the influence of these delusions for centuries, and in the past it has typically required violence and degradation to sort out. The real concern should be what impact this would have on population growth. The world is full of talking apes already - do we really need many more of us living longer lives and sucking down resources and filling up space? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not that i want to see anyone die especially young people, but even if someone said they had a pill that if i took it i would be like 18 again and live for 500 yrs would i do so. I speak for no one but myself, but i ask myself what would the world be like if everyone lived to be even 200 yrs old as some scientist in these feilds are suggesting is not that far away from happening. I try to look at the consequences of actions before they happen as much as possible, not always successful, but i try. so all i say is try not to look at it from the perspective of what it might do in a good or bad sense for the individual - but how it will affect the entire planet. how many more babies would we have if people were to be able to reproduce til they were let's say 150 yrs old, and how many more of their babies would do the same and how much more room does the planet have for life and food and all else? our quest for a better and longer life for those of us now or even later generations just might become our end, it's at least worth contemplating or taking into consideration i think. then again if you find this not to be the case your welcome to ignore it, just my thoughts. Genetic tampering with humans by an advanced civilization suggests that they purposely designed them to reproduce rapidly in order to populate the earth and provide more product or slaves or what ever they were making humans for. Whether that were true or not, if we advance in genetic technology to the point we can live for 500 years, then I am sure we could fix it so that we don't reproduce like bunnies. I would love to live for 500 years. JB |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not that i want to see anyone die especially young people, but even if someone said they had a pill that if i took it i would be like 18 again and live for 500 yrs would i do so. I speak for no one but myself, but i ask myself what would the world be like if everyone lived to be even 200 yrs old as some scientist in these feilds are suggesting is not that far away from happening. I try to look at the consequences of actions before they happen as much as possible, not always successful, but i try. so all i say is try not to look at it from the perspective of what it might do in a good or bad sense for the individual - but how it will affect the entire planet. how many more babies would we have if people were to be able to reproduce til they were let's say 150 yrs old, and how many more of their babies would do the same and how much more room does the planet have for life and food and all else? our quest for a better and longer life for those of us now or even later generations just might become our end, it's at least worth contemplating or taking into consideration i think. then again if you find this not to be the case your welcome to ignore it, just my thoughts. Genetic tampering with humans by an advanced civilization suggests that they purposely designed them to reproduce rapidly in order to populate the earth and provide more product or slaves or what ever they were making humans for. Whether that were true or not, if we advance in genetic technology to the point we can live for 500 years, then I am sure we could fix it so that we don't reproduce like bunnies. I would love to live for 500 years. JB then by all means i hope you do G, 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TT wrote: It is hard! How can we say NO to altering genes for improved intelligence, or physical appearances/ athleticism? But YES to altering genes to prevent and treat diseases? Either way aren't we are intervening that person's "natural course" or God's will? Mankind has been 'playing God' for quite some time now. Gene therapy is just another technology. No one seems to have a problem with doctors cutting people open to removed an inflamed appendix, or a malignant tumor. Yet that is just as 'unnatural'. We used to vaccinate people against Small Pox, Polio, even the flu. We have no problem implanting a pace-maker to keep someone's heart beating, or putting them on drugs for the same purpose. How can you say when we are intervening with a person's "natural course" or God's will? I'm assuming that you're talking about the biblical God. Cleary it doesn't mention anything about these things in the Bible. So what are we supposed to do? Guess what God's will might be? Why do you draw the line at Gene therapy? What about cesarean births? That's most certainly "unnatural" intervention by man. Should we just let those mothers and babies die from complications instead? What about facial reconstructions of babies that are born with serious deformities? Should we stop doing that? Where's the line? Where do we draw the line? Why draw it at Gene therapy? And you're right, where do we draw the line between treating "disease" and natural "deformities" and merely helping to modify imperfect bodies? Again, where's the line between mere imperfection and a serious deformity. Who decides where that line is? How stupid does a person need to be before we consider them to be "abnormally" stupid enough to classify them as being "diseased". Who are we to tell other people how far they should go with their medical "intervention" on nature. I actually have a fatigue problem myself. Without a doubt my fatigue is extremely "abnormal" enough to be classified by doctors to be a 'disease'. Yet, they have no cure for it. They say my HDL levels are abnormally low and there is no known treatment. However, I recently read an article that says that Gene therapy may soon be able to help people who have abnormally low levels of HDL. They can inject genes that will cause blood to create more HDL. Gene therapy seems to be the only potential solution to this problem. The funny things is that if I could take a pill to make me all better, you wouldn't have a problem with that. But if I have to be injected with Genes then you have a problem. Why should the mechanism of natural intervention change the morality of it? I can see what you are saying about people wanting to have "Designer Children". That does sound like it could be problematic. However, we've already been tampering with natural selection for quite some time. C-sections of course is one example, we are helping people to procreate who might not 'naturally' be able to. We are also keeping people alive who have genetically transferable diseases thus allowing them to pass on their genetically transferable "bad genes". The process of "Natural Selection" is already over. Man is already intervening in that process, and has been intervening for quite some time. We are helping many people to live and procreate who could not "naturally" procreate. So we've already been "Playing God" for quite some time. This isn't something that is new with Gene Therapy. Moreover, if the biblical God is the true God of the universe, he's way overdue for writing a new book. Clearly his old book does not even address these kinds of questions at all. If we have to start guessing what God might, or might not, approve of, then the doctrine becomes totally meaningless. Clearly the Bible cannot possible answer these question since these technologies were not known when the books were written. From that perspective the question is meaningless for a religion that is based on such an antiquated doctrine. That doctrine simply can't answer these kinds of questions. The Biblical picture of God is so far out of date that it's meaningless in today's world. That's just a fact of life. Actually Abra, the "old book" clearly deals with this. It isn't a matter of "playing God". The discovery of Gene Therapy is not a surprise to God that he has to come out with new revelation to tell man how to deal with this dilemma. The options are clear, and the choices remain with man. If these therapies are done i a manner which does not "please" God - there will be consequences. It's that simple. Look at history. What difference does Gene therapy have with plastic suregry, organ transplants, or any of the procedures discovered over the last century. There will be life saving options, and there will be vanity options. The choice remains with the individual - or more specifically by the recommendations of Doctors familiar with the benefits, and consequences. What remains of the utmost importance IMO - is that people make informed choices. I tend to agree with your perspective on this Abra. Man would be playing God only if they put themselves in His place and attempt to prevent the option for people to make choices. If it can be domonstrated that this therapy is on a fast track toward abuse - then restrictions must be put in place, else we will just have another catagory for massive civil litigation. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if your God allows humans to do it......Humans will do it
if we didn't try...wouldn't that be worse |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I see gene therapy as a natural extension of man's desire to improve himself. So an absolute belief that it is "wrong" is tatamount to saying that man should not endevor to improve himself.
The key issue is most easily illustrated by the example of selecting the eye color of a future child. By doing that, are we enforcing a value judgemnent on another person? And if the answer is yes, then isn't selecting out a genetic defect also enforcing a value judgement on another person? The anser to that conundrum is wholly dependent upon one's views as to what exactly a "person" is. This is a very appropriate topic for the religious forum becuse it goes to the very heart of the relationship between the "physical" and the "spritual". |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Great thread and I almost missed it. Once again, as I see in almost all of these threads, I read "privilege" between the lines. Those who agree with the path that genetics is taking,seem to automatically assume that "they" would reap the benefits of such technology. Consider this idea again. Health care STILL won't pay for the implant of a tooth that is lost. Health care often won't pay for extended hospitalization, and health care is quickly becoming the main determinant of physician and hospital care altogether. Do you expect health care to be in the equation of genetic technology? Many insurance companies won't cover extensive furtilization processes, why would they cover genetic technology? So who will have access to it? Keep in mind that there are those who have the power to SET THE PRICE. Who can afford, who can't, is what we have to look forward to. So philisophically, the question of "should we continue on the path to enlightened genetic technology?" must contain ALL moral implications, and not just "does it go against nature?" It's been mentioned, already how much power there is to be had in "owning" or "ruling over" such technology. In that vein we must also consider the social and political side of the philosophy question. But that won't happen, not until technology and knowledge become equal and the reality that only the elite will benefit from it. That's always the way it is, where there is a possiblity of power, there is a line of those waiting to grab it. ULTIMATELY: We need to stop questioning that which is imminent and begin the process of legalities, entitlements and keeping such technology in the public domain and AWAY from the pharmaceutical industry, the businessmen and the politicians. NOW IS THE TIME for public intervention. NOW is the time for public funding with the understanding, by THOSE FUNDED, that all knowledge in this area is not for sale and is to remain in the public domain. Why do we always wait until it's too late - we are more intelligent and more up to date than ever before in history. When Pres. Bush suspended federal funding of stem cell research - the PUBLIC stepped up to the plate and massive amounts of funding have been made - BUT the "public" forgot to put the conditions on and there are those labratories and scientists, today in that field,who are beholding to the unscrupulous nature that lurks in greedy depths of man. LIVE - LEARN! Great points and thank you for posting. You put things into a new perspective. So perhaps "better genes" isn't about ethics but who has the deepest pockets. The healthiest people will be the wealthiest. I see this now, can you imagine the future? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Instead of prolonging human life in the developing worlds, do you not think that time would be better spent on developing crops and food for the underdeveloped worlds?
We have a huge continent where there are people who starve to death because drought inhibits their abilities to grow basic food stuffs. Gene therapy is necessary, but develop the genes in food first. Lets get all humanity on a level were they live past 30 years old. Someone in here said (paraphrased) if god didnt want us to develop gene therapy then he would not have given us the skills to do it. If you believe in god, then you have to believe this is right. After all, your god doesnt inhibit free will - does he? 
|
|
|
|
|
