It's a personal answer for me it's unethical for the traditional part but it's also ethical since editing genes can greatly reduce risks of future health problems
@@serkantemiz7565 discrimination is not a gene. Unless you're suggesting changing people's skin color to align with beauty standards? Which would actually be encouraging discrimination, not getting rid of it. Seems very hitler-y. People of all colors are beautiful.
I was born with genetic predisposition to Alzheimer's (luckily relatively slight) and almost certainly depression (runs in family) and the idea that anyone else should have to needlessly endure those risks once the tech becomes safe and effective (and genetic screening for IVF implantation already is) because it makes ppl feel a bit uncomfortable or some kind of bullshit about naturalness really upsets me. You wouldn't be ok taking a child and injecting them with a compound that instilled those risk enhancing genes so why is it ok to stop ppl from removing them? Let me add that we already have genetic inequality. Some of us were born with genetic predispositions to depression, mental illness and Alzheimer's. Not making genetic manipulation available keeps that inequality in place. Making it available to everyone not only reduces the number of ppl who have to suffer awful conditions like early onset dementia, depression etc but also has the opportunity to level the playing field and let everyone (not just those lucky enough to be born without genes predisposing them to unpleasant conditions) start life without known harmful mutations (and there are plenty of SNPs that are only negative). And you can't justify leaving someone to face a genetic risk of some awful condition (ONCE it's safe and effective) by vaguely waving your hand and saying there are too many morally issues. Before you force ppl to endure those kind of harms you need alot better argument than the vague concerns everyone always raises.
People worry too much, why not all be humble and likeminded about doing something and if it fails, as a group decide whether to continue and try to fix or stop the expirement.
Tech can be used for great and amazing things. But it can also be used for great and terrible things. It all depends on who is wielding it and how they use it. They could defeat diseases, sickness and weaknesses. They could also make people more controllable and susceptible to manipulation.
as a christian i like the question being asked i have put some though into this. personally i think it should be a conversion between the parents planning to have the child! if its others saying you must and it is forced then ethical questions arise. if its gean editing of a adult do they have free will and choice or is it forced. and a big part is being educated on any medical situation procedure doctors do this alot. i have been looking at crisper and geen editing stuff and stem cell stuff just for learning.
That's the wrong question! The better question is (once we know it's reasonably safe and effective) if it is ethical NOT to use genetic engineering when you know that without it a child would have a greater risk of quality/length of life reducing conditions. I mean, imagine a pregnant woman whose body didn't produce enough of its own vitamins refused to take a cheap and effective supplement knowing it put her child at serious risk of future disease or birth defects. While it might not be appropriate for the government to force her to take them or punish her for not doing so it seems obvious she's doing something morally wrong by ignoring the welfare of her future child. Using genetic modification is no different. Genetic manipulation is no more unnatural than artificial supplements or medications. Yes, currently it's too risky just like taking random chemicals but once the tech improves the moral imperative to give future ppl the best shot at being healthy/happy and long lived seems clear (which isn't the same as being normal...many ppl prefer being deaf but no one prefers being depressed or having cancer). Worries about inequality are red herrings. That's not an argument not to manipulate genes but to make sure it's available to everyone. Besides, just like digital tech which instead of a digital divide created cheap cell phones that helped make the world more equal, I expect that genetic manipulation would rapidly become cheaper and within the price range of everyone (and if not subsidize it)!
Depends who you ask. That's not a particularly helpful answer, I know, but I think it demonstrates something very important that we must keep in mind when discussing ethics. What is or is not moral is not objectively decided, opinions vary across culture, history, and individuals. One of, if not the biggest factors determining an individuals moral opinions is religion, because religions often claim to be the objective standard by which good and evil is defined. Even so, I think it's important to take ourselves out of the dogmatic moral code constructed for us, even if only for a moment, and consider things from alternative perspectives. Just because people disagree doesn't mean one of them must be wrong; what is "right" is not always so simple.
This video broaches two topics of ethical discussion in healthcare - editing DNA and treatments done on unborn children. These subjects have been debated for many years, both independently and in a combined topic such as this one. They will likely continue to be the center of ethical discussions as technology advances. I agree that genomic editing has a robust and influential place in healthcare, especially with diseases involving the immune system, malignant tumors, viruses, and more (www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9133615/#:~:text=Immune%20system%20and%20malignant%20tumors&text=Genome%20editing%20could%20potentially%20be,to%20infect%20the%20target%20cells.). It also has the potential to save a lot of lives in the case that babies have inherited a malignant combination of genes from their parents. If scientists and doctors can provide life-saving technology before birth, they directly apply and maximize the medical principle of beneficence - or doing good. However, I also agree that we must approach this technology cautiously and consider the questions posed in the video: how can the medical community determine how ethical it is to save a life? Additionally, we must consider the medical components of autonomy and justice. Patient autonomy refers to the patient’s right to choose the medical treatments they undergo, are educated about their options, and can adequately consent to that treatment. Justice refers to providing equal access and care to each patient. Physicians, therefore, must approach their patient’s treatment in a way that respects their wishes, is in their best interest, and is fair. There is the apparent dilemma in which an unborn child cannot consent to treatments and cannot express what they would want. It is commonly accepted that the parents or guardians are responsible for granting consent and acting on behalf of their children until they come of age or are emancipated. However, the issue of genetic editing is very different than just giving consent for a flu shot. By consenting to have their unborn child undergo genetic editing, they agree to significant changes that could impact that child for the rest of their life. Furthermore, since genetics are passed on to future generations and offspring, parents consenting to change the DNA of their unborn child could have significant implications for future generations. Even if the intent behind editing the genes is reasonable (such as editing the gene so it does not encode for cancer), much is still unknown. There is a significant risk for unintentional harmful impacts (such as turning on a different cancer gene). While the parents gave consent for their child, do they have the decision-making power and authority to make a decision that can harm all future offspring? Are the scientists and healthcare workers also liable for unintentional harm caused by unknown genetic mutations as an adverse effect of this procedure? In summary, I believe that we should continue to engage in these discussions as technology advances and we understand the impacts that genetic editing can have on future generations to protect the ethical principal of autonomy.
how you gonna prove someone's genetics is manipulated, how you gonna prove who did it, what if the parents's genetics were manipulated with viruses and the child inherited those genetic changes, how younna prove that the virus was artificial, and if virus was artificial, how you gonna prove the purpose of the virus was to change the genetics of the parents
Just repeating info I heard, but they say you “prove” a virus is fabricated when it cannot or hasn’t been isolated. You can only “prove” genetic modification of human offspring when it begins to grow or is born with strange “non-human” characteristics such as no eye sclera, extra or missing organs, double tooth rows, 1000 year lifespans, skyscraper heights, or any other “non typical” human feature.
This video is wrong, the movie GATTACA involved no genetic engineering, they used embryo selection. When Andrew Niccol wrote the movie GATTACA (released in 1997) Genetic Engineering was illegal here in New Zealand, but Embryo Selection was legal.
Most of the comments are thinking about individual cases, and of course it depends on context... but eugenics is still a huge problem for society! This makes discrimination worse for disabled people, and even tge average doctor contributes to the problem with sterilization...
People are still far too likely to believe that genes control our intelligence or sexuality, and kids would surely experience some kind of discrimination if their genes were edited at all 🤔
Riddle me this Batman Are you 100% sure you know EVERY consequence of doing this both short term (3 generations) or long term (hundreds of generations) If not it is UNETHICAL AND IMMORAL
why is abortion ethical in society and science? I can't understand this. Someone please explain to me why abortion is considered ethical and gene editing not. I am for gene editing and against abortion. I am for future thinking beforehand and not for killing everything afterwards because you simply decided you don't want it any longer. It is not that much fun living with an auto immune disease your whole life. I know because I have one myself. I think I rather like the idea of eliminating genetic deseases out of the human genome for future generations. Also, the aspect of designer babys doesn't shock me at all. At least these children will be loved. These children will be wanted and this is all a child needs in reality. So many children in this world are conceived and being born in the usual way and are not wanted from the very first day of their life. Quite a lot of them land in waste bins and their life goes on like that. Is this ethical for you? It isn't for me.
Imagine people having babies where they all look the same, because the beauty standard leans towards certain features of social media stars and celebrities? Then a decade or so the trend changes
It's a personal answer for me it's unethical for the traditional part but it's also ethical since editing genes can greatly reduce risks of future health problems
All thanks to Dr Abiola on RUclips for curing me permanently from HIV with his herbal medicine #drabiolahome
And we can make more beutiful human and we can remove discrimination.
@@serkantemiz7565
And they can also remove free will
Tradition is stagnation.
@@serkantemiz7565 discrimination is not a gene. Unless you're suggesting changing people's skin color to align with beauty standards? Which would actually be encouraging discrimination, not getting rid of it. Seems very hitler-y. People of all colors are beautiful.
It is ethical. It should be 100% be done in the future. if it is possible to gene edit an adult human, I will volunteer for trial stage.
I was born with genetic predisposition to Alzheimer's (luckily relatively slight) and almost certainly depression (runs in family) and the idea that anyone else should have to needlessly endure those risks once the tech becomes safe and effective (and genetic screening for IVF implantation already is) because it makes ppl feel a bit uncomfortable or some kind of bullshit about naturalness really upsets me. You wouldn't be ok taking a child and injecting them with a compound that instilled those risk enhancing genes so why is it ok to stop ppl from removing them?
Let me add that we already have genetic inequality. Some of us were born with genetic predispositions to depression, mental illness and Alzheimer's. Not making genetic manipulation available keeps that inequality in place. Making it available to everyone not only reduces the number of ppl who have to suffer awful conditions like early onset dementia, depression etc but also has the opportunity to level the playing field and let everyone (not just those lucky enough to be born without genes predisposing them to unpleasant conditions) start life without known harmful mutations (and there are plenty of SNPs that are only negative).
And you can't justify leaving someone to face a genetic risk of some awful condition (ONCE it's safe and effective) by vaguely waving your hand and saying there are too many morally issues. Before you force ppl to endure those kind of harms you need alot better argument than the vague concerns everyone always raises.
People worry too much, why not all be humble and likeminded about doing something and if it fails, as a group decide whether to continue and try to fix or stop the expirement.
Tech can be used for great and amazing things. But it can also be used for great and terrible things. It all depends on who is wielding it and how they use it. They could defeat diseases, sickness and weaknesses. They could also make people more controllable and susceptible to manipulation.
All thanks to Dr Abiola on RUclips for curing me permanently from HIV with his herbal medicine #drabiolahome
what music is this?
as a christian i like the question being asked i have put some though into this. personally i think it should be a conversion between the parents planning to have the child! if its others saying you must and it is forced then ethical questions arise. if its gean editing of a adult do they have free will and choice or is it forced. and a big part is being educated on any medical situation procedure doctors do this alot. i have been looking at crisper and geen editing stuff and stem cell stuff just for learning.
That's the wrong question! The better question is (once we know it's reasonably safe and effective) if it is ethical NOT to use genetic engineering when you know that without it a child would have a greater risk of quality/length of life reducing conditions.
I mean, imagine a pregnant woman whose body didn't produce enough of its own vitamins refused to take a cheap and effective supplement knowing it put her child at serious risk of future disease or birth defects. While it might not be appropriate for the government to force her to take them or punish her for not doing so it seems obvious she's doing something morally wrong by ignoring the welfare of her future child.
Using genetic modification is no different. Genetic manipulation is no more unnatural than artificial supplements or medications. Yes, currently it's too risky just like taking random chemicals but once the tech improves the moral imperative to give future ppl the best shot at being healthy/happy and long lived seems clear (which isn't the same as being normal...many ppl prefer being deaf but no one prefers being depressed or having cancer).
Worries about inequality are red herrings. That's not an argument not to manipulate genes but to make sure it's available to everyone. Besides, just like digital tech which instead of a digital divide created cheap cell phones that helped make the world more equal, I expect that genetic manipulation would rapidly become cheaper and within the price range of everyone (and if not subsidize it)!
Is murdering an unborn child ethical or unethical?
thats a good question tho
Depends who you ask.
That's not a particularly helpful answer, I know, but I think it demonstrates something very important that we must keep in mind when discussing ethics. What is or is not moral is not objectively decided, opinions vary across culture, history, and individuals.
One of, if not the biggest factors determining an individuals moral opinions is religion, because religions often claim to be the objective standard by which good and evil is defined. Even so, I think it's important to take ourselves out of the dogmatic moral code constructed for us, even if only for a moment, and consider things from alternative perspectives. Just because people disagree doesn't mean one of them must be wrong; what is "right" is not always so simple.
What about people who are afraid to have children because of passing on inheritable diseases? It's not all silly things like eye color etc.
Parece tan cercano y factible que tomaría la oportunidad de editar genéticamente si pudiera. Sin duda es algo que acentuará la desigualdad.
All thanks to Dr Abiola on RUclips for curing me permanently from HIV with his herbal medicine #drabiolahome
This video broaches two topics of ethical discussion in healthcare - editing DNA and treatments done on unborn children. These subjects have been debated for many years, both independently and in a combined topic such as this one. They will likely continue to be the center of ethical discussions as technology advances. I agree that genomic editing has a robust and influential place in healthcare, especially with diseases involving the immune system, malignant tumors, viruses, and more (www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9133615/#:~:text=Immune%20system%20and%20malignant%20tumors&text=Genome%20editing%20could%20potentially%20be,to%20infect%20the%20target%20cells.). It also has the potential to save a lot of lives in the case that babies have inherited a malignant combination of genes from their parents. If scientists and doctors can provide life-saving technology before birth, they directly apply and maximize the medical principle of beneficence - or doing good. However, I also agree that we must approach this technology cautiously and consider the questions posed in the video: how can the medical community determine how ethical it is to save a life? Additionally, we must consider the medical components of autonomy and justice. Patient autonomy refers to the patient’s right to choose the medical treatments they undergo, are educated about their options, and can adequately consent to that treatment. Justice refers to providing equal access and care to each patient. Physicians, therefore, must approach their patient’s treatment in a way that respects their wishes, is in their best interest, and is fair. There is the apparent dilemma in which an unborn child cannot consent to treatments and cannot express what they would want. It is commonly accepted that the parents or guardians are responsible for granting consent and acting on behalf of their children until they come of age or are emancipated. However, the issue of genetic editing is very different than just giving consent for a flu shot. By consenting to have their unborn child undergo genetic editing, they agree to significant changes that could impact that child for the rest of their life. Furthermore, since genetics are passed on to future generations and offspring, parents consenting to change the DNA of their unborn child could have significant implications for future generations. Even if the intent behind editing the genes is reasonable (such as editing the gene so it does not encode for cancer), much is still unknown. There is a significant risk for unintentional harmful impacts (such as turning on a different cancer gene). While the parents gave consent for their child, do they have the decision-making power and authority to make a decision that can harm all future offspring? Are the scientists and healthcare workers also liable for unintentional harm caused by unknown genetic mutations as an adverse effect of this procedure? In summary, I believe that we should continue to engage in these discussions as technology advances and we understand the impacts that genetic editing can have on future generations to protect the ethical principal of autonomy.
Imagine being able to end a birth defect, which always kills the mutant infant when it is 2 years old.
Gattaca
great movie!
It would be unethical not to edit someone’s genome.
@Gigi Ghiba It's 10000% unethical to allow congenital diseases to exist.
shh
there are consequences too
Ask the mother's opinion of the unborn child
how you gonna prove someone's genetics is manipulated,
how you gonna prove who did it,
what if the parents's genetics were manipulated with viruses and the child inherited those genetic changes,
how younna prove that the virus was artificial,
and if virus was artificial,
how you gonna prove the purpose of the virus was to change the genetics of the parents
All thanks to Dr Abiola on RUclips for curing me permanently from HIV with his herbal medicine #drabiolahome
Just repeating info I heard, but they say you “prove” a virus is fabricated when it cannot or hasn’t been isolated. You can only “prove” genetic modification of human offspring when it begins to grow or is born with strange “non-human” characteristics such as no eye sclera, extra or missing organs, double tooth rows, 1000 year lifespans, skyscraper heights, or any other “non typical” human feature.
This video is wrong, the movie GATTACA involved no genetic engineering, they used embryo selection. When Andrew Niccol wrote the movie GATTACA (released in 1997) Genetic Engineering was illegal here in New Zealand, but Embryo Selection was legal.
You could transform a Man into butterfly if you know the right code/DNA.
:- ELON MUSK.
Most of the comments are thinking about individual cases, and of course it depends on context... but eugenics is still a huge problem for society! This makes discrimination worse for disabled people, and even tge average doctor contributes to the problem with sterilization...
People are still far too likely to believe that genes control our intelligence or sexuality, and kids would surely experience some kind of discrimination if their genes were edited at all 🤔
It is unethical to band it it should be mainstream
Also it give us serius problem can't be reversed
Riddle me this Batman
Are you 100% sure you know EVERY consequence of doing this both short term (3 generations) or long term (hundreds of generations)
If not it is UNETHICAL AND IMMORAL
We so smart we stupid
7 min comment here..
I wish Instagram never ever existed
why is abortion ethical in society and science? I can't understand this.
Someone please explain to me why abortion is considered ethical and gene editing not.
I am for gene editing and against abortion.
I am for future thinking beforehand and not for killing everything afterwards because you simply decided you don't want it any longer.
It is not that much fun living with an auto immune disease your whole life. I know because I have one myself. I think I rather like the idea of eliminating genetic deseases out of the human genome for future generations.
Also, the aspect of designer babys doesn't shock me at all.
At least these children will be loved.
These children will be wanted and this is all a child needs in reality.
So many children in this world are conceived and being born in the usual way and are not wanted from the very first day of their life.
Quite a lot of them land in waste bins and their life goes on like that.
Is this ethical for you?
It isn't for me.
Good edit out diabeetes
Imagine people having babies where they all look the same, because the beauty standard leans towards certain features of social media stars and celebrities? Then a decade or so the trend changes
First lol
After exploiting the planet
Creating atomic bombs
Now scared at playing gods
Human is truly something
Unethical
Nice to see that old german ideas ww2 are still allive . And now we accept it 🤣🤣 gotta make some ariers 🤣
when you have no argument
Honestly its a sin to dye your hair or go to the hospital its destorying gods will.
Even after a year, your comment is the dumbest out of all here