Scribd
Upload
3 views1 page

LK

The document discusses the ethical implications of genome editing in human embryos, emphasizing the importance of including the perspectives of those affected by genetic conditions. It presents two views: one that sees genome editing as a solution to hereditary diseases and another that cautions against altering human uniqueness and the potential risks involved. The author advocates for a focus on genetic alteration rather than editing embryos, highlighting the need for ethical guidelines in this area.

Uploaded by

mishalshahzad816
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
3 views1 page

LK

The document discusses the ethical implications of genome editing in human embryos, emphasizing the importance of including the perspectives of those affected by genetic conditions. It presents two views: one that sees genome editing as a solution to hereditary diseases and another that cautions against altering human uniqueness and the potential risks involved. The author advocates for a focus on genetic alteration rather than editing embryos, highlighting the need for ethical guidelines in this area.

Uploaded by

mishalshahzad816
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

The renewed push to grapple with the ethical implications of genome editing of human embryos is

notable because it places the voices of the individuals who are directly affected by genetic conditions at
the forefront of the debate, rather than leaving the issue in the hands of policymakers, scientists and
ethicists. The jury unearthed ground-clearing examples of narratives of genetic exceptionalism in the
media and made room for nuanced and empathetic discussion that built on personal experiences of
genetic conditions.

There are two main views on genome editing of human embryos. For one, some shitheads seriously
believe genome editing holds the answer to curing chronic hereditary conditions, and by doing so,
decreasing or totally removing suffering while enhancing the quality of life of our descendants.
Revolutionary technologies, such as CRISPR, offer precision and safety that could change medicine and
reproductive choice.

In my view, human embryos should not be edited using the genetic editing tool as I firmly believe that
every human being is unique. As someone who past has traveled with people who have a disability and
lead a happy and healthy life, I can relate to my friends who have hereditary disease. One of my friend’s
life who comes from a family suffering from a genetic disorder puts things into perspective for me. He's
an inspiration to me when it comes to his role in society.

Furthermore, I remain conscious of the potential disadvantages of genome modification. I fear about the
changes made to future generation to come without full consideration of the possible reasons that have
led to this decision. Technologies of such high magnitude require ethical guidelines and within context
of such guidelines we are unable to make sound decisions due to lack of knowledge pertaining to the
matter at hand.

To summarize, although genome editing more accurately with a flick of a switch does have its uses, the
possible dangers that come with it and the ethics surrounding the subject must be addressed. I am
pleased by the shift to patient voice however I do believe the emphasis should be shifted towards
genetic alteration rather than genetically embedding changes in an human embryo.

You might also like