In this case, the biomedical issue described is the patient, Jesse Gelsinger, suffering from a genetic disorder called the Ornithine Transcarbamylase Deficiency (OTC). Apparently, this disorder blocks the body’s ability to break down ammonia, which is found in the liver. The patient has been preventing further damage in his body by going on specialized drugs and maintaining a strict no protein diet. Early 1990s, the human gene therapy is currently being practiced, it’s an attempt to change the genetic make-up of the patient, in which, researchers will inject a virus with a genetic material that the patient need in order to break down ammonia. Jesse Gelsinger is the very first patient to undergo the human gene therapy, by means of inserting the gene through the bloodstream to the liver, which is very risky.
First, since the situation has never happened before, shouldn’t the researchers of the University of Pennsylvania use test …show more content…
Then, isn’t it enough reason to actually not go through with the experiment? Obviously, the success rate has gone lower, and with no paradigm case to guide this experiment, then isn’t it ethically wrong to go through with the experiment? They are injecting a modified virus directly into the bloodstream of the liver of a human being, with the liver’s weakened state, how are they so sure that it can fight off the possible effects of the modified virus other than to release the genetic material Jesse needs? A grave miscalculation on the researchers’ part if they had not thought of that as a possibility. That is exactly why they should’ve used test organisms first before going through with the human experiment, if they had enough data and research on the same case then they may have formulated a new hypothesis and solution to the problem and they would have had their conscience clean knowing that they did everything to make it right with enough data and
First, since the situation has never happened before, shouldn’t the researchers of the University of Pennsylvania use test …show more content…
Then, isn’t it enough reason to actually not go through with the experiment? Obviously, the success rate has gone lower, and with no paradigm case to guide this experiment, then isn’t it ethically wrong to go through with the experiment? They are injecting a modified virus directly into the bloodstream of the liver of a human being, with the liver’s weakened state, how are they so sure that it can fight off the possible effects of the modified virus other than to release the genetic material Jesse needs? A grave miscalculation on the researchers’ part if they had not thought of that as a possibility. That is exactly why they should’ve used test organisms first before going through with the human experiment, if they had enough data and research on the same case then they may have formulated a new hypothesis and solution to the problem and they would have had their conscience clean knowing that they did everything to make it right with enough data and