Genetic Testing, Being Superhuman Isn’t All That it’s Cracked Up to Be

“Genetic enhancement has emerged as an ethical issue because it involves the power to redesign ourselves, including the potential to impact the very essence of what it means to be human,” says Marilyn Coors.  The way I see it, genetic enhancements are morally wrong when one uses them to enhance certain abilities they have, like athleticism for instance. Enhancing certain things that we aren’t particularly happy about with ourselves changes who we are and who we were really meant to be. There is a big difference between therapeutic and genetic enhancements. It really comes down to necessity or want. Sometimes “want” can lead to a fault in humankind, and in the case of genetic enhancement, “want” has the possibility to lead to harmful consequences.

I would have to agree with Shelby Brown’s concept that when you tamper with what essentially marks us as human, DNA and genetics; you make us more than human. As Shelby say’s everyone has their own set limitations. Having different limitations is part of what makes us human. If we are all become genetically enhanced limitations would be a thing of the past, and that would result in a piece of our humanity being chipped away. That again makes us more than human.  Being more than human would make you superhuman, and to most that doesn’t sound like a bad thing at all. But becoming more than human requires genetic enhancements and that comes with many possibly negative consequences.

Focusing on the harmful effects of genetic enhancements is one thing Shelby did not touch on, but it is a crucial factor in why genetic enhancement is unethical.



Complexity of Human DNA

Genetic enhancing requires changes of naturally occurring genomes and with that comes new inventions of genetic combinations. Since most genes have various functions, the complexities of the Human Genome will make the task of genetic enhancing very difficult (Genetic Enhancement). So difficult that it can turn harmful. Genetic functions are very unpredictable and one enhancement that works for one person may not work for another. That could end up with a negative consequence of a human function that may not have been thought to occur.

According to the National Human Genome Research Institute, genetic enhancements have been tested out on animals such as cattle. In particularly, these animals have been genetically enhanced for muscle growth. After the insertion of transgenes for a muscle growth hormone the cattle did at first show signs of a greater muscle mass, but muscle degeneration soon followed and the cattle died. Cattle’s genetic makeup is fairly similar to humans, although humans are more complex. So if genetic enhancement resulted in the death of the cattle than what does that say about the effect is would have on humans who are more complex? That is a risk I would not be willing to take just so that I could acquire more muscles.  

You just never can tell. With our understanding of genetics not being fully complete is a risk in and of itself. So now is genetic enhancements not only morally wrong, but it has also become ethically wrong.

Shelby Brown did a great job of showing how unnecessary and morally wrong genetic enhancement can be in her post, “To be or Not To be…Human?”  And some may disagree with our viewpoint along with others, on how being more than human is not natural. Some may say that there is nothing wrong with having no limitations and that genetic enhancement allows everyone to be at their peak performance. But they are missing the big picture here; that is how harmful genetic enhancement could be to them or the fact that in order to keep our humanity there must be must be set limitations. Everyone cannot be equal; that is just how the world works.  



 

Huntington's Disease: 50/50 Chance

After many months of convincing the clinic at New York-Presbyterian Hospital/Columbia University Medical Center to test her for Huntington’s disease, Katherine Moser’s results finally came in. At age twenty-three Katherine Moser was tested positive for Huntington’s disease. “Huntington’s disease is hereditary and, at the moment, an incurable brain disorder where one’s nerves cells in parts of the brain begin to perish or degenerate (Huntington's Disease).”  This disease usually takes over during one's mid forties. Ms. Moser thought she has prepared herself enough for this outcome but she was far from prepared. She soon started seeing a therapist, during her fist session she realized how people view HD, as well as people who know a lot about it. Her therapist told her that, “it was her moral and ethical obligation not to have children” (Harmon).

The fact that the therapist had the nerve to tell Ms. Moser that is beyond shocking to me. The view point that people with Huntington’s disease should not be allowed to have children is ignorant and unjust to the people diagnosed with HD. There is a 50% chance that the child will not get Huntington's disease and that is a chance that parents should be allowed to take. And even if the child does test positive for Huntington's disease they still have plenty of time to live fulfilling lives.

“Since 1986 people who are at-risk for Huntington’s disease have been able to get tested for the mutation on chromosome 4 that is the cause of the disease Ethical Issues of HD.” Since Huntington’s disease is hereditary this makes it very difficult for an at risk couple to think about starting a family if they tested positive for HD. This began the great debate on whether or not people diagnosed with HD should have children. If one knows they have HD then they also know that they have a 50/50 chance of passing it on to their offspring. Many think that a 50/50 chance is too great of a risk to take and that it is morally wrong to possibly subject your children to an incurable disease like HD. Others believe that it is solely up to the at risk couple to decide whether or not they should have kids.

There are even many new technologies that insure that couples can have perfectly healthy babies, such as in vitro fertilization HD Buzz, Also scientist are progressing towards finding cures for Huntington’s disease so that at risk children can be born into the world where there is a cure for HD.

As I began to think about this great debate I feel that it is no one’s business to tell someone whether they should or should not have kids. Many people all their life dream of starting a family and just because they find out that they have a disease such as Huntington’s does not mean that a lifelong dream of theirs should be crushed. Yes, I’m aware that there is a great possibility that their child may have the same fate as their parent, but that is for no one to decide except the parents.

People with Huntington’s disease do not start showing signs until they are usually forty years old and forty healthy years of life is better than none at all. And it is quite possible that if a child is born with a risk of getting HD today that they may find a cure by the time they start to show symptoms. Soon enough scientists will find a cure for HD, Axokine and neurotransplantation are two current treatments that are advancements in finding a cure for HD (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/). So there is no reason that at-risk couples should be pressured into not having kids, because they can hold out for a cure if their child does end up with the disease or allow them to live the most normal life possible until the symptoms start. And don’t forget that there is still that fifty percent chance that their child may be risk free from getting Huntington’s.

Many people may disagree with me for various reasons. One might be that they don’t think its right to bring a child into this world that could possibly have an incurable disease such as Huntington’s. Some view this as the same as telling someone who can't support a child not to have one. But these two incidents could not be more different. A child who does have Huntington's disease has until they are at least forty years old to show symptoms of it. Forty years is a long time to live and be a functioning memeber in society as well as serve a purpose in life. They will need to be supported when their symptoms hit and that is a parental responsibilty that should be discussed before having children. Why it is okay to tell someone who is not able to support a child not to have kids is because unlike a child with HD, they don't have a 50% chance. With parents knowing that they can't support a child they are putting their want to have a family above the life that the child may have.

Many people who disagree with me are pessimists and only see the bad in having children that have a fifty percent chance of getting Huntington’s disease. On the other hand, I am an optimist along with many who have te same viewpoint as me, and we see the good in bringing new life into the world whether or not it is at risk of having HD. No one has the right to tell someone that it is not ethical for them to start a family of their own just because they have a hereditary disease like Huntington’s. Everyone should be free to make their own decisions no matter their medical situation.

                                                Normal Brain vs. Brain Affected by HD

Work Cited

Harmon, Amy. "Facing Life With a Lethal Gene." The Best American Science Writing. Ed. Sylvia 
     Nasar. New York: Harper Perenial, 2008. 1-16.