Why Should Biomedical Engineers Have To Consider These Types Of Issues

The Case for Enhancing People, the author Ronald Baily does not believe using medical tools to enhance humans is morally troubling. He believes that enhancements will only help people live better lives. (Kaebnick p 145)The author defines an enhancement as a procedure that improves functioning and increases the capabilities of human flourishing. I do not think that humans should try to play the role of God and do things that should be left to Him. But I also believe that God has given us the knowledge to discover these technologies and procedures that allow us to lengthen or improve our quality of life. The history of the last two centuries has shown that technological advance has been far more advantageous than harmful for humankind. One

It seems like every few month scientists make the next breakthrough in combining technology and human biology. More and more things that only existed in science fiction like mutants and biological enhancements have become reality. But unlike other improvement in our society, the concept of human engineering has become an issue of ethics. As this reality human engineering draws closer-everyone from scholars to

The evolution of technology has been hand in hand with the human subjugation of earth, but the question persists, when does the use of technology go too far? Advances in medical science have increased the average human lifespan and improved the quality of life for individuals. Medical science and biology are steadily arriving at new ways to alter humans by the use of advanced genetic alteration. This technology gives rise to the question of how this new technology ought to be used, if at all. The idea of human enhancement is a very general topic, since humans are constantly “enhancing” themselves through the use of tools. In referring to human enhancement, I am referring specifically to the use of genetic intervention prior to

In an ever-increasing technological world, many scientists and researchers are now trying to revolutionize the human body through genetic enhancement. Genetic enhancement is defined as the transfer of genetic material intended to modify one or many non-pathological human traits.

Thesis: While genetic enhancement allows humans to improve our talents, genetic enhancement would lower appreciation for human life and talents and overall it would be detrimental to the human condition to partake in genetic enhancement.

The morality of genetic enhancement (GE) differs from person to person. The stance Michael J. Sandel’s takes is that eugenics and GE has no morality. He states in his work, “The case against Perfection”, that manipulating ones genes makes one less human; since, humans are not perfect which is what makes one human and by designing a perfect person one is taking away their humanity. He thinks eugenics are morally problematic in the cases of abortion; in which the mother would be free to determine if she would like to abort the baby by looking at its genes for illnesses, physical appearance and sex, this would test and even change ones moral values. Sandel is opposed on the quest of perfection due to the fact that one is not looking at the big picture, human life is a precious gift. He argues that one’s faults and quirks are what makes one unique from the other seven billion people on earth. And if one takes away what makes one who they are and becomes the perfect person there will be no originality since many would want to also become perfect. Imagine how many parents would want their child to become the next Einstein or Shakespeare. The freedom to become one’s own person would be taken away. For example, a boy that was GE to love soccer and no other sport and a boy that gets to pursue whatever he chooses, the other boy never had the opportunity or liberty to choose what sport he would like he was programed to love soccer for the rest of

Genetic enhancement is a debated subject in the scientific and social communities. Some authors, such as Russell Powell, Guy Kahane, and Julian Savulescu claim that selective breeding led to the development of genetic enhancement. Selective breeding is an attempt to bring about desired traits in plants and animals; it is similar to genetic enhancement because both attempt to perfect a certain species (2012). However, selective breeding is not a desired method of genetic enhancement in humans because it relies on sexual aspects. As defined by Chris Gyngell, enhancement is the increase of specific traits (2012). Using Gyngell’s definition of enhancement, genetic enhancement can be defined as the increase of desirable traits in a human being. While scientists may perform tests on animals to assess the safety of genetic enhancements, the goal of genetic enhancement is to perfect the human species. Michael Fuchs, Chris Gyngell, Robert Sparrow, and Russell Powell, Guy Kahane, and Julian Savuescu explore the potential benefits genetic enhancement could create, such as the enhancement of intelligence or creating a more moral society, and the potential risks, such as creating generational barriers or a new species of humans, it may have on future and current generations while discussing how to explore a safe future in it (2010; 2012; 2012; 2012).

not be allowed because it does more harm then good. They may be right, but once genetic enhancement is available, it will generate a lower cost for the government to enhance their citizens, and not only for the government, for the parents this will be an avaible option to give their children a better and secure future. In fact, genetic enhancement would give the opportunity to end with discrimination by leting scientist enhance our genes. Genetic enhancement would give everyone the opportunity to succeed and compete at the same level. There are many natural disadvantages that we cannot compete with, for example when someone is faster or more inteligent. Genetic enhancement will eradicate those disadvantages and give the oportunity to have the same level of all the capabilities and this way have equal

Genetic enhancement is just another form of enhancement which has the benefit of the child in mind. There are many others: education, medical care, extra-curricular activities, etc. As Goering puts it, a parent does not blink when they give the child vitamin supplements, vaccinations, and dental enhancements (e.g., braces) [Goering, 2]. Imposing parental treatment is a part of being human and is ethical when the intentions are beneficent. There is no real difference in changing attributes of a child for the better at the genome level, or once the child is born. If administering growth hormones to young children to prevent them from being too short [Simon] is justifiable, then so is germline genetic modification of height to produce the same result. Or, if parents are fine with the installation of braces to straighten their child’s teeth, then they should be fine with genetic manipulation instead to produce the same outcome. The two actions are basically the same; the latter is perhaps even better as it eliminates the discomfort of being forced to wear braces.

My first argument against Genetic enhancement is about the safety of the technology used. Is it safe to use? There are several safety concerns about the technology, all of which lie within the physical alteration of the gene. Genes are very specific and will only work correctly in certain ways. Although scientists may know a fair deal about genes, do they know about the consequences if their technology were to fail? One of the risks directly involved with their technology is the technique of introducing a gene at a random place in the genome. By doing this the gene could interrupt another sequence of genes that are vital for survival. It could also alter the effect that the gene has. The gene might have the effect wanted, such as an increased intellect, but it may also introduce an unwanted effect. This became apparent in 2001 when Joe Tsien genetically altered mice to have a high memory capacity. The mice were able to learn very quickly and were able to retain more information but at what cost? The mice also had an extremely high sensitivity to pain: something that a human being wouldn’t be able to live with. Do you think that’s fair? Would you be willing to sacrifice your quality of life for an enhanced learning capacity? I know I wouldn’t. But what is more unfair is that the embryos, who are the ones who are going to be enhanced, don’t have a choice in the matter. What about the children’s

To really understand the world in today’s debate about genetic modification, you must know the difference between genetic modification and enhancement. Modification is the ability scientists and doctors have where they can change your child’s genes to help cure diseases they may have, while enhancement is used to create a smarter, faster, and stronger human being. These two uses of engineering get people confused because they think of them as the same. That’s why you must

Before the 21st century, the world's best scientists and researchers met in Paris to discuss the possibility of human augmentation. Plastic surgery and implants were becoming more common as the century was ending. The conference discussed the ethical and moral quandaries of human augmentation only being made available to wealthy, developed countries. It also discussed the “need” and “want” in human augmentation, and the potential for human augmentation over the next century. After the discussions, The Code of Ethics on Human Augmentation was showed to the

Elon Musk, an inventor, once said, “If something is important enough you should try, even if the probable outcome is failure.” In the medical world, doctors have to be satisfied with their outcomes, no matter the circumstance. After they research a new topic and establish a base for a new invention, they work hard in order to make it perfect before using it in a human body. The doctors make many improvements to their invention and test it in every possible situation. Following the tests, the doctors will implant their invention into a human body for the first time. They do not know if there will be any complications during this surgery or if it will be a success, but they have to live with the initial result and improve on it for future transplants. For example, the first artificial heart transplant was a surprising success, but the surgery had several complications, which led to improvements on all artificial hearts.

Many disregard the opposed based on the fact that genetic engineering is seen as a sophisticated form, given that they are presented with manageable risks and great benefits that should be further explored. There are three moral implications that need to be addressed with the growth of biotechnology. The ethical concerns, which are both secular and religious, the benefits versus harmful consequences and the justices of these enhancements. Well first touch on the secular and religious concerns of genetic engineering. Religious parties object to genetic engineering because they see life as being sacred and shouldn’t being altered by human hands, and is seen as playing with God. It violates the dignity of human kind and other forms of life that are having their DNA altered. These objections are based off of the existence of the power of one to defy and the secular objection is assuming that having a life in its natural state, not being altered is inviolable. This claim is sometimes disagreed by others due to the fact of evolutionary processes. By altering a life, their sacredness is being altered, which violates ones creator. Also genetic disorders that are uncontrollable and inflict self-mutilation such as Lesch-Nyhan syndrome, present altering of one’s self without being modified. It is sometime rebutted that what if one believes there is no creator and that simply things are just there. That

Human enhancement is a ubiquitous aspect of our society that “adds” to an individuals life. What humans classify as enhancement is not fixed nor ever-changing, but rather a form of the human desire to improve. As long as humans have the will and means to live, enhancements will continue to be the seed of many controversies and the stem of new scientific discoveries that will change our society. For this reason, human enhancement is a necessity. A necessity, however, that must be monitored.