Familial Hypercholesterolemia Research Paper

Though the use of pre-natal hereditary screening is as of now utilized as a part of high-hazard pregnancies for recognition of illness, for example, Down syndrome and Huntington 's chorea (Ridley 55, 98). As researchers decide the qualities for extra hereditary conditions, screening of incipient organisms will give more data to potential biological parents, former to their offspring has advanced. On the off chance that a screened embryo were found to convey qualities for a specific malady or inability, its guardians may specifically prematurely end it. This gives parents a choice of raising a child with a disability or back out if they don’t have the means to support the child financially, physically, emotionally or mentally. This is a good thing despite what others say because if a child is born with a disability in to family that doesn’t have the means to support it, it is unfair to all parties

Embryonic cells should be allowed to be used because of the medical benefits they provide. They can be used to cure diseases such as Parkinson’s disease, diabetes, traumatic spinal cord injury, Duchenne’s muscular dystrophy, heart disease, and even vision and hearing loss (nih.gov 2009). There is no problem using them for medical purposes and it is not immoral to use them for this reason. Embryonic cells have the potential to save lives. Therefore, the usage of embryonic cells outweighs the ethical issues.

An embryo should have the same rights as any other human, being, if a baby is unwanted, go for adoption. “There are thousands of loving families waiting to adopt children”(Source B). Why abort, when you can go for adoption? There are many families out there that will desire to adopt unwanted babies. “Approximately 5 million Americans alive today are adoptees, 2-4 percent of all families have adopted, and 2.5 percent of all children under 18 are adopted”(Source B). Adoption has become more common in the United States, and it is a great solution for those mother who have unwanted pregnancies to not abort their child but to give them for

Gina Kolata’s article, Ethics Questions Arise as Genetic Testing of Embryos Increases (2014), explains that as the increase of the testing of embryos for parents to choose whether or not to have children has also brought its ethical questions in the light. Kolata uses the Kalinskys case, a family in the article, and how their neurological disease, Gerstmann-Straussler-Schinker (GSS), has raised questions for ethicists who have looked into the case. Kolata’s purpose in writing this article is to inform the audience on the growing topic of embryo testing and also the ethical question that also accompany in order to have the audience to develop a personal view on the issue. Given how the author explains the technical terms used within the article, Kolata is writing to an audience that is not fully aware of genetic testing.

By taking the stem cells from the embryos we’re stopping a human to develop, which means we kill it. This is against human rights and is also against God. most likely the human that is in need of the treatment has already lived while the embryo has not. Why not give a chance to a new human to be able to live? abortion cannot be permitted or projected to people as a good act. By letting these treatments take place we are promoting abortion. We can't let abortion be seen as a medical treatment, abortion is

This proposal is immoral because it violates a central tenet of all civilized codes on human experimentation beginning with the Nuremberg Code: It approves doing deadly harm to a member of the human species solely for the sake of potential benefit to others. The embryos to be destroyed by researchers in this campaign are at the same stage of development as embryos in the womb who have been protected as human subjects in federally funded research since 1975.(4) President Clinton's National Bioethics Advisory Commission (NBAC) and its 1994 predecessor, the NIH Human Embryo Research Panel, conceded that the early human embryo is a form of developing human life that deserves our respect(5). Treating human life as mere research material is no way to show respect.

Embryonic stem cell research is a controversial topic nationwide, because of its clash of ethical and moral values. Many people, including those suffering from diseases that this research is seeking to cure, do not believe in killing a living embryo in order to advance research and science.

There are people who disagree on the morality of using human embryonic cells, and stem cell research in general, nonetheless. Some stubborn pro-life organizations insist that the destruction of the “blastocyst, which is a laboratory-fertilized human egg” (White), is on the same level as murdering a human child and is entirely immoral and unacceptable. Even if these embryonic cells are being used to save lives and cure diseases, they believe it is wrong because the cells were taken at the cost of a

As stated earlier, Christians must evaluate the different methods of medical technology in order to identify the moral and ethical ramifications of certain medical procedures. I believe that any procedure that forces a couple to decide what is to be done with “leftover” embryos should not be used. However, there are some procedures such as IUI and IVF that utilize

Embryonic harvesting and freezing is considered an ethical dilemma and morally unacceptable. Karen Capato reserved sperm for in-vitro fertilization posthumous and reared twins as a result. In this instance, technology was used after the death of a spouse to create life posthumous and the use of such is considered an act of God. “The Bible mentions in its parables that we should not to disrupt a life” (E. Horning, personal communication, January 31, 2013). Manipulating genetics

Specifically, this pertains to stem cell research. In keeping with the principle of utilitarianism it is morally correct to treat embryo with a higher purpose than any other cells. Embryos have great potential in treating the world’s illnesses that other cells do not so to be moral we must do what is best for the most people. In keeping respect for embryos we could choose only the most beneficial research to be approved for their use thus being as utilitarian as possible. In this way embryos lie somewhere in between the moral value of humans and other bodily tissues. If embryos did not have the medical potential they do, then I would say they only deserve the respect other bodily tissue deserves. Embryos have no consciousness or sentiment like other tissue but, have

Initially, the primary purpose of genetic counseling was to provide patients with an understanding of the genetic problems in their family that could be inherited by offspring. However, in the past few decades, goals have shifted to not just informing clients of the possible diseases of their offspring, but also to preventing the possibility of genetic disorders occurring through selective embryo implantation or even abortion.

I think in an advancing society it is necessary but, with limitations. A person has a right to know about their future children and is entitled to avoid anything they may consider to be too troubling to handle; however, patients should be made aware that the results may be negative or defamatory. But, access to this kind of information requires a serious amount of sensitivity and the person handling it should be aware of this and understand that the only ethics that have entitlement in this situation are the subjects’ . I think it’s all very delicate and subjective. There should be many considerations when having a child or dealing with one’s genetics but, the most important one is quality of life. As long as the ethics support that they are not only beneficial but,

Embryonic Stem cells have led to a very long line of discussion. Whether to see it as immoral not to pursue research or immoral to pursue research, it is nonetheless very difficult to discuss. Questions are uncovered during this debate, for example, Is killing possible life (Embryos) lesser or greater than saving the already living, such as people with incurable diseases? The debate goes deeper and deeper into moral judgment and it doesn't matter whether you are religious or not in this argument because in both cases it is a life. But what if it didn't have to be a life? Further forms of research may be used to help save lives both from people who have incurable diseases and the embryos. If such research can be formed without a moral block, performance of such research should not be delayed. The possibility to save loved ones is incredible, to do so without victimizing women for embryos and killing those embryos, which could possibly behold life, only to maybe

If one were to abort an embryo then that embryo, that human life would never be duplicated again. For example, a scientist that may have found the cure to A.I.D.S would be killed. There is a better way to solve our problems than by killing children. A fertilized egg is the most beautiful, most innocent being that we could ever create and can redeem even our worst mistakes. This fertilized egg is not just a mass of tissue, for if it were there would be no debate. It is immoral to kill; therefore, abortion is immoral.Abortion should be banned because life begins at conception.