Post your essay. Get expert feedback. For free.We're trying to help students improve their writing the hard way. Do you know students who want critical essay reviews from a professor of English Literature? Click like to share. Click here to sign up and post your own essay. We offer no paid services. All reviews are completely free.
NOTE: This essay was submitted before EssayJudge.com started to offer free essay reviews. To learn about submitting essays for free expert feedback, click HOME above.
Designer Babies - by: Noah Martin
A baby born in England was chosen in the embryonic stage to undergo genetic testing, called pre-implantation genetic diagnosis, also known as PGD (Britt). This was so she could be free of a gene that linked to certain type of cancer. A forty-year-old woman underwent PGD because she had Alzheimers disease and was afraid of passing it on to her child. From there she implanted embryos without that gene into her womb (Britt). This gave her the miracle of a healthy baby girl, free of Alzheimers. Currently, PGD is only used for similar cases such as the ones above, curing babies of life-affecting diseases. Many people would agree that this is for the greater good of the planet but there are negative results that would come out of this. Also, in the future, PGD could be able to help parents decide what kind of baby they desire. Imagine a world where parents can choose their ideal baby out of a catalogue, being able to ask for an athletic, intelligent, and social child with blue eyes and blonde hair. It would be as easy as ordering a hamburger with all of your favourite toppings in a restaurant. The real question is where to draw the line. Using PGD to cure diseases before birth is questionable, but using PGD just to give a child a competitive edge is unethical.
There are two main reasons why curing diseases with this new technology is wrong. Firstly, it is now possible to detect genetic disorders such as Down syndrome and TaySachs disease, and then the parents have the option to abort the fetus (Giunta). It is possible to receive a false-positive result while being tested. This means that there have been many embryos, future human beings that have been killed needlessly. Secondly, lets say we use this research to get rid of all genetically transferred diseases. This could affect the flow of the worlds population. The worlds resources are already running out, if the population goes up then there is no telling what could happen (Giunta). There still are positive reasons for getting rid of diseases using PGD. It can save a human being from suffering his/her whole life.
One thing to consider is the social impact of genetically engineering a baby. In the future, if designer babies do come into play, then most of the population will consist of designer babies. One would think, what would happen to the babies that do not have the privilege of being born with these superior qualities? They would most likely be discriminated against. For example, if a designer baby and a non-designer baby are competing for a job. The designer baby is far more superior in every aspect than the non-designer baby. The designer baby would obviously get the job. This leaves the non-designer baby in a situation where they would have to get a low-paying job. Of course we obviously do need good workers for the low-paying jobs, its how the world works. But it should be the decision of the child of what they want to do in life and how hard they are willing to work for it. Dr. Steinberg, a pioneer of In Vitro Fertilization, said that "You can say eye colour and hair colour are not diseases, no they're not, and there is a cosmetic element to it, but we fix crooked noses all the time (CTV.ca News Staff)." This is a valid point but it is hard to compare plastic surgery or nose jobs, with designer babies. Plastic surgery is up to the person who is getting the surgery. With advanced technology they are allowed to change their face into any which way they want. With designer babies it is up to the parents. Maybe the parents ideal look for their child is not the way that the actual child wants their look to be. Sure the parents would be happy, but most would agree that it would be better if the child were happy as well. In the article Designer Babies written by David Bygott, Bygott made the point of it being no different from parents offering music, sports, and tutors, giving their child every advantage that they can (Bygott). The difference is, music, sports, and school take a lot of hard work to get experienced at. It is a lot different from being born with these qualities, automatically being good at any given activity. Many people born with these so-called undesirable traits say that it is apart of who they are. Nobody has the right to say what should be fixed when the people who have these certain traits are perfectly fine with them.
The cost of designer babies is a huge factor to why they are considered unethical. Using this technology is probably going to be very costly, currently people are paying over $18 000 for PGD (Hattie). This would mean that designer babies would only be open to middle-upper class citizens. The lower income citizens would not have the option of choosing designer babies. The lower income citizens of the world are already excluded from so many new innovations because of the cost. The last thing that they need is another obstacle that they have to overcome. Parents want what is best for their child, even the lower class. By giving the option of designer babies only to middle and upper class, it would just give the lower class child an unequal chance of success. For example, when we get back to David Bygotts point, these lower class citizens will still have to work to be good at every-day activities, how fair is that considering the wealthier kids catch this talent naturally.
The Holocaust is an example in history that shows why making designer babies is unethical. Adolph Hitler and the Nazis set out to create the Aryan Race (the perfect race) during the Holocaust starting in 1939. To achieve their goals they started to eliminate every person that was considered undesirable. This led to the deaths of millions of innocent people. Many Jews, disabled people, political and religious opponents and many more were exterminated, adding up to a total of somewhere between nine and eleven million people (Giunta). When looking back at the Holocaust, most people think of a sad and evil period of time that we are not proud of. Yet now the idea of designer babies comes running into the picture and it makes us realize, we havent come that far at all. This is exactly where the quote If history is forgotten it is doomed to repeat itself comes into play. The only difference between the Holocaust and designer babies is that instead of killing human beings that are out of a womb, we would be killing undesirable cells and embryos. Some people would think that cells and embryos arent living yet; its just like an abortion. The fact is that these cells and embryos will soon grow up into babies. Instead of taking a life away from a human being, you will be killing something that hasnt even gotten a chance at life. When designer babies come into China, a country that values all baby boys above baby girls, what will happen to their race (Guinta)? The population of boys in china would be much higher than girls. The only difference between designer babies and the Nazis is that many people feel that designer babies are for the good of the planet, but in reality, they arent.
In conclusion, genetically designing babies is unethical. Even curing babies using this new technology has its negative effects. Just because we have the power to play God doesnt mean it is ethical to do such a thing. It would affect people all over the world. There is no excitement when knowing everything about your child before the child even knows, some things are best left untouched. The choice is left to us, whether we should risk repeating history by going back to the days of Hitlers genocide. Or we can stay as we are, leaving the future of our babies up to chance. Whether we should have all human beings born equal at birth, or having the lower-class citizens discriminated against. There is still a lot of time to think about this issue because we still have years until we find all the genes that make up hair, eye colour and any other traits. Though unless we want chaos when the time comes, and it will come, we should start thinking about it now.
Submitted by: noahmartin189
These sorts of concerns were first voiced decades ago, well before the human genome had even been “mapped.” Those were the days when our accelerating knowledge about led to over-optimistic hopes for quick fixes to an array of afflictions and grandiose visions of designing genetically enhanced babies to be more intelligent, athletic, musically talented and the like.
More recently, many scholars, scientists and policy makers have urged a different approach: We should carefully and thoughtfully apply the tools of human genetic engineering to treat medical conditions in people, but we should not use them to manipulate the genetic traits of future children. Genetic modifications of sperm, eggs and early embryos should be strictly off limits. Otherwise, we risk venturing into human experimentation and high-tech eugenics.
Unfortunately, there are now worrisome signs that opposition to inheritable genetic modifications, written into law by dozens of countries, according to our count, may be weakening. British regulators are also considering mitochondrial manipulations, and proponents there, like their counterparts in the United States, want to move quickly to clinical trials.
Researchers at Health and Science University have produced five macaque monkeys using one of these techniques. Four are now adults and all five appear healthy. But we won’t know for years how subsequent generations may be affected.
And the O.H.S.U. researchers themselves report a difference between their experience with the macaques and their work so far on fertilized human eggs. More than half of the human zygotes — single cells formed by the merging of an egg and sperm — had abnormalities not observed in the fertilized eggs of the monkeys. “It looks like human oocytes are more sensitive,” the lead researcher, Shoukhrat Mitalipov, a reproductive biologist, told Nature.
Some media accounts about these techniques have misleadingly referred to “saving lives,” as if they were aimed at people who are sick and suffering. Others have failed to note how very few women would be candidates for even considering them. And they could turn to safer and simpler alternatives. An affected woman could adopt or use in vitro fertilization with another woman’s eggs. Of course, the resulting child would not be genetically related to her, but neither would the child be put at grave risk by an extreme procedure.
The F.D.A. advisory panel says that its meeting will consider only scientific aspects of mitochondrial manipulation and that any “ethical and social policy issues” are outside its scope. But those are precisely the issues that we must address. Simply being able to do something doesn’t mean we should do it.Continue reading the main story