Genetic Engineering ethics

Genes atomic number 18 what code particular traits and char toureristics and ar the tempt to health and ailment. Ongoing advances are out beneficial making It available for parents to genetically metamorphose Implanted fertilized eggs aiding In the creation of intriguer babies. In my taste I am going to discuss the font of a Bristles play off that allow for catch Britains first designer baby. I will suppress the ethical Issues regarding the topic of genetic engineering and also theories of Kantian moral philosophy and utilitarianism to Justify If genetic engineering is morally set.A British couple has bypassed unrelenting laws in Britain for genetic screening by traveling o the States and undergoing dish outment which costs 80,000 in order to conceive their desired pincer, in the hope to hold on their sick 4-year-old tidings who is recovering from Leukemia. Experts at the reproductive Genetics Institute based in Chicago did IVY sermon on the mother and and th en(prenominal) screened embryos to find a good grind away marrow match for the British couples son, should he relapse and pauperization a transplant.Doctors will collect blood from the umbilical cord, which Is rich In alkali cells that brook the ability to repopulate bone marrow. This has been a controversial solecism where It Is dubious If science has pushed the boundaries too much The key ethical imports explored in this courtship include, whether it is fair for parents to manipulate the genes of their infantren for particular traits when the child themselves cannot give consent, does selecting for certain traits cast health risks that would have not been apparent otherwise and will sassy forms of inequality arise due to genetic aristocracy.The key ethical issue I am livelinessing at is whether it is morally right for parents to be allowed to create designer babies, is it a step towards scientific success or the pushing of scientific boundaries? Kantian ethics was a th eory real by Emmanuel Kant (1724-1804), he supposed In the treasure for persons, that no one should be treated as a mean to an block provided. As R all(prenominal)es and Reaches (2010) postulate, the only way human cosmoss can have a moral good is to do from a good will as if it is a reek of duty.Can (2002) supports this by saying that Kant considered it a duty to treat people with respect because of their freedom and to encourage the pursuit of individuals ends because it has been their free choice. Therefore treating them as an end and never only as a means, as hat is considered as manipulating and using people to get to your desires. Another primal part of Kantian Ethics was the idea of an do being applied universally.Christians, Fickler, McKee, Crusher and Woods (2009) state what is right for one is right for all (p. 15). According to Kant he believed that before you acted you would have to question whether you would follow through this action mechanism universall y and allow everyone to do It as well, If so the act would be accepted and If not the act would be disallowed. Reaches and Reaches (2010) support this by saying, being a moral agent, hen, means gulden ones conduct by universal laws moral rules that hold without ejection in all circumstances (p. 29). Undergoing genetic engineering, it is kn give birth that Kant believed that if an action was to be Justified it should be able to be applied universally. Applying this British couples action universally would mean that it would be Justified for every family having children to genetically modify their babies genes by using embryo screening technology. In this case it would be a good outcome as it allows security department for both the parents and particularly the 4-year-old son who could possibly have a relapse.However Kant would not agree to apply it universally as it would allow all couples to under go embryo screening where not only you can screen for genetic disease but also de termine what gender, hair geek, eye color type and height levels your child would be, there would be families who would abuse this scientific technology to create the most genetically superior child. Another reason why Kant would not support the actions of this British family is because he believed that you should never treat individual as a means to an end.Kant thought it was a duty to treat people with respect because of their freedom. However in the case the designer child has given no consent in the matter in being the savior child for the older son, incase he is in need of a transplant. Instead of the parents promoting the idea of letting their newborn child have a life where the respect of its own rights are more important, it now has to live a life knowing that its own internal dust parts and organs will be used incase of a relapse for the sick sibling. Consequentially this child is therefore used as a means to an end.Although the designer child is promoting its siblings w elfare and putting its own needs before its own, this child has had no freedom of hooch and the parents are solely thinking about the consequences and the positive outcomes this designer child will create. Kant would conclude that the parents of the designer baby are morally wrong and their actions werent Justified. utileism takes a very different come on to Kantian ethics as it is essentially determined by what will produce the best consequences and increase overall happiness and the least amount of money of evil in the world.There are 2 main types of Utilitarianism, one is Classical Utilitarianism and the other is find oneself Utilitarianism. The preferences between the ii are that Act Utilitarians Judge an action based on the consequences of it, whereas Rule Utilitarians Judge the action as a rule and what would happen if everyone lived by it. However both forms can be summarized into three advises. The first proposal is all actions can be Judged right or wrong, dependen t on their consequences.Reaches and Reaches (2010) state that to determine whether an action is right or wrong you should look at the results and consequences of that action, if it has produced the most happiness for the superior amount of people then therefore it is right and nothing else matters. Christians, Fickler, McKee, Crusher and Woods (2009) discuss the second proposition for utilitarianism as a calculation for the consequences of each option available and then question whether there is a greater amount of harm or greater amount of good in the lives that would be affected.Once actions have been Judged we then are morally obliged to admit the option with has the greatest amount of happiness and least amount of unhappiness. The third proposition urges that everybody happiness is stating right actions are those that produce the greatest balance of happiness over unhappiness, with each persons happiness counted as equally important (109). Looking at this case from a Utilitari an view, its shows to have very different perspectives than Kantian Ethics.The Utilitarianism approach supports the act of the British couple with creating a genetically modified child in the aid of their 4-year-old son, as they believe that actions should be Judged on their consequences. The act of which the British couple chose to make was to genetically screen and then choose an embryo with the perfect bone marrow gene to help save their son recovering from Leukemia should he need a transplant.The consequences of which this act has are to help save the life of the young 4-year-old child and create security for the family, knowing they would have two healthy children. Another reason why Utilitarians will support the actions of this couple is because it has created the greatest amount of happiness. In this case the people who would be truly happy are the parents, as a sense of security has been created from the designer child and also the sick four- year-old son would be very happy as well as he gets to live a healthier life knowing he as the transplants available should he need them.However the only person who would be unhappy could be the designer child as it is being used without openhanded consent but that would not matter as Utilitarians also believe that everyones happiness is equal, so therefore no ones happiness is more important than the others. Utilitarians are more concerned about the consequences of an action than the motives and intentions therefore the action of the parents creating a designer child would be considered morally right as the consequences of this action leads to a greater amount of happiness than unhappiness.From a Utilitarian perspective Parents would be considered morally right in allowing to create designer babies as it can be used to eradicate life weighty diseases that are identified in an embryo and also create a more powerful race where everyone can do what they set their musical theme which would lead to a greater amoun t of good in the lives of people. In conclusion, I have explored the ethical issues surrounding this case and whether it is morally right for parents to be allowed to create designer babies.Through the theories of Kantian Ethics and Utilitarianism I have come to form my own opinion that signer babies are unnecessary, although they may save lives it is impossible to justify who needs the designer baby and who doesnt. Kantian Ethics would oppose the creation of designer babies because it effectively neglects an individuals freedom and is something that cant be deemed as a universal rule and Utilitarianism supports it as the consequences create the greatest amount of happiness and least amount of unhappiness for the family.