Starting with the detection of diseases in newborns an example of genetic screenings success can be found from Phenylketonuria (PKU). PKU forms in approximately one out of twelve thousand live births. A child who hosts PKU shows no sign of problem at birth but if left untreated may suffer seizures and develop behavioral problems and mental retardation. PKU testing started in the 1960's and is now mandatory in the United States. Through this regulatory process PKU has practically been eliminated. To add more support to the genetic screening process, the program constructed to eradicate PKU through genetic screening and treatment before PKU side effects emerge had been extremely cost-effective when compared to the cost of treatment for affected
…show more content…
David Wasserman illuminates some details to the answer. He states "[t]he principle that condemns [the saviour child's] creation is not based on the extent of sacrifice involved or threatened, but rather on the degree to which his creation is subservient to the needs of another, and on the absence of his own good as part of the reason for his creation" (qtd. in Lotz 292). Wasserman further explains his point by stating that the saviour sibling would be born into a more servile role, one that does not benefit itself. Mianna Lotz responds to this with the question "what can be claimed about the values or disvalue of being brought into existence" (293). There is no way to determine whether being brought into existence benefits or harms the saviour sibling or any child for that matter. It is also impossible to deem the value of existence in the future of an ever-changing and unpredictable world, especially since there is no proven or disproven point before life in which to compare to. The argument that the child's birth should be primarily for the benefit of that child is hard to maintain with no means to argue a worse situation in which the child had not existed. If the beneficial factors of a child being brought into existence cannot be claimed or denied then a decision based on the benefit of the child cannot be …show more content…
Benjamin J. Hurlbut is highly critical of the scientific discussions at the Asilomar Conference in 2015 and their review of CRISPR/Cas9 genome engineering technology. In making note of the longstanding ethical questions that have been brought up, such as what should and should not be manipulated and responsibilities to future generations, Hurlbut argues, "What, then, justifies the notion that this emerging technology has caught us off guard or that it is appropriate for experts to retreat into secluded spaces to define the parameters of public debate?" (11). A technology that can define the shape and form of future generations to come should not be limited or expanded by scientists in a locked room making decisions. This potentially world-changing event should be brought to light under the careful eyes of world leaders and other political leadership, religions, and the general public. Instead, the experts at Asilomar use excuses that the public is uneducated in this topic to provide legitimate concern to justify a self-regulating system so long as no serious harm would be caused to individuals. The progression of genetic technology will only grow in popularity and acceptance the further developed it becomes. If technology that changes the face of the world and its inhabitants turns
David Wasserman illuminates some details to the answer. He states "[t]he principle that condemns [the saviour child's] creation is not based on the extent of sacrifice involved or threatened, but rather on the degree to which his creation is subservient to the needs of another, and on the absence of his own good as part of the reason for his creation" (qtd. in Lotz 292). Wasserman further explains his point by stating that the saviour sibling would be born into a more servile role, one that does not benefit itself. Mianna Lotz responds to this with the question "what can be claimed about the values or disvalue of being brought into existence" (293). There is no way to determine whether being brought into existence benefits or harms the saviour sibling or any child for that matter. It is also impossible to deem the value of existence in the future of an ever-changing and unpredictable world, especially since there is no proven or disproven point before life in which to compare to. The argument that the child's birth should be primarily for the benefit of that child is hard to maintain with no means to argue a worse situation in which the child had not existed. If the beneficial factors of a child being brought into existence cannot be claimed or denied then a decision based on the benefit of the child cannot be …show more content…
Benjamin J. Hurlbut is highly critical of the scientific discussions at the Asilomar Conference in 2015 and their review of CRISPR/Cas9 genome engineering technology. In making note of the longstanding ethical questions that have been brought up, such as what should and should not be manipulated and responsibilities to future generations, Hurlbut argues, "What, then, justifies the notion that this emerging technology has caught us off guard or that it is appropriate for experts to retreat into secluded spaces to define the parameters of public debate?" (11). A technology that can define the shape and form of future generations to come should not be limited or expanded by scientists in a locked room making decisions. This potentially world-changing event should be brought to light under the careful eyes of world leaders and other political leadership, religions, and the general public. Instead, the experts at Asilomar use excuses that the public is uneducated in this topic to provide legitimate concern to justify a self-regulating system so long as no serious harm would be caused to individuals. The progression of genetic technology will only grow in popularity and acceptance the further developed it becomes. If technology that changes the face of the world and its inhabitants turns