The “Bubble Boy” gene therapy experiment is one of the experiments on gene therapy. Gene therapy is still a moral debate to this day, some people beg the question if it’s okay to use gene therapy or what would it do to the human body which are all great questions. The discussion will be on whether the “Bubble Boy” gene therapy experiment was ethical or not and if the treatment was worth the risk. Basically the “Bubble Boy” experiment was on children suffering from the bubble boy disease which is a severe combined immunodeficiency that can possibly lead to death (Vaughn, 260). Sixteen children suffered from this disease so the researchers decided to try out the new treatment on them, they received gene therapy for nine years (Vaughn,260).
…show more content…
No the treatment helped many young kids even though there are risks, wouldn’t it better knowing that a treatment was able to save fourteen lives rather than saying a cure was made but was chosen not to be shown to the world because there was a risk of getting leukemia. Yes, every life matters but the question, would someone be able to deal with all sixteen kids dying and be okay knowing there were ways most of them could have been saved. People do risky things daily, like drive a car there is always a risk of getting into a terrible car accident, or riding a plane, the plane could always crash, a person minding their own business can be risky, someone could be walking out the store to their car and get robbed or maybe even killed. The world is risky, chances have to be taken and that’s what all of the other twenty kids did was take a chance, for fourteen of them it was worth the risk and the other five not so much. The counter argument could be that if treatment causes leukemia and researchers know it does then they shouldn’t offer the treatment to anyone because every life matters and the treatment would be a risk to someone’s life. Yes, saving fourteen children lives is better than saving none but what about the other four children lives who’s going to go through extensive treatments to treat the leukemia and could possibly die, that’s another person who didn’t have to lose their life. The …show more content…
If gene therapy was the only possible treatment for the genetic diseases, then it would be morally right for the children to be treated with gene therapy. Getting leukemia would just have to be a risk the children would have to take. If the gene therapy was the only way to prevent the children from dying and the greatest good is produced, then why not support the treatment. Think about if the treatment isn’t allowed to be used and every kid dies within a two year range their parents, siblings, friends and probably anyone one else who was close to the child would be unhappy and upset. No one could morally argue against a treatment that would help save tons of lives, people could say that leukemia is a big enough risk to prevent the treatment from being offered to society. There are many ways that one could treat leukemia, most likely many people have fought or overcame leukemia, cancer can be treated. In the journal article “Is Gene Therapy a Form of Eugenics” by John Harris, he makes some great points for one he asks the questions is it morally wrong to wish and hope for a fine baby girl or boy (Vaughn, 226)? Is it wrong to wish and hope that one’s child will be born disabled (Vaughn, 226)? What would we think of someone who, hoping and wishing for a fine and healthy child, declined to take the steps necessary to secure
No the treatment helped many young kids even though there are risks, wouldn’t it better knowing that a treatment was able to save fourteen lives rather than saying a cure was made but was chosen not to be shown to the world because there was a risk of getting leukemia. Yes, every life matters but the question, would someone be able to deal with all sixteen kids dying and be okay knowing there were ways most of them could have been saved. People do risky things daily, like drive a car there is always a risk of getting into a terrible car accident, or riding a plane, the plane could always crash, a person minding their own business can be risky, someone could be walking out the store to their car and get robbed or maybe even killed. The world is risky, chances have to be taken and that’s what all of the other twenty kids did was take a chance, for fourteen of them it was worth the risk and the other five not so much. The counter argument could be that if treatment causes leukemia and researchers know it does then they shouldn’t offer the treatment to anyone because every life matters and the treatment would be a risk to someone’s life. Yes, saving fourteen children lives is better than saving none but what about the other four children lives who’s going to go through extensive treatments to treat the leukemia and could possibly die, that’s another person who didn’t have to lose their life. The …show more content…
If gene therapy was the only possible treatment for the genetic diseases, then it would be morally right for the children to be treated with gene therapy. Getting leukemia would just have to be a risk the children would have to take. If the gene therapy was the only way to prevent the children from dying and the greatest good is produced, then why not support the treatment. Think about if the treatment isn’t allowed to be used and every kid dies within a two year range their parents, siblings, friends and probably anyone one else who was close to the child would be unhappy and upset. No one could morally argue against a treatment that would help save tons of lives, people could say that leukemia is a big enough risk to prevent the treatment from being offered to society. There are many ways that one could treat leukemia, most likely many people have fought or overcame leukemia, cancer can be treated. In the journal article “Is Gene Therapy a Form of Eugenics” by John Harris, he makes some great points for one he asks the questions is it morally wrong to wish and hope for a fine baby girl or boy (Vaughn, 226)? Is it wrong to wish and hope that one’s child will be born disabled (Vaughn, 226)? What would we think of someone who, hoping and wishing for a fine and healthy child, declined to take the steps necessary to secure