Bioethics Human Genetics

Question: Discuss about the Bioethics for Human Genetics. Answer: Bioethics is the entire study of all the ethical considerations and ethical issues arising from the emerging technological and research advancement in biological science and medicine. It is also referred to the moral judgment in the biological practices, as it is related to the medical policy and practice (Lippman, 1993). In this essay, different ethical issues in emerging biological studies will be focused. Three articles have been selected for analyzing the bioethics and its impact upon the scientific research. In these three articles, major ethical issues in medical practices, the prenatal testing and ethical consents of mothers, the FACE facts for provoking bioethics and the human cloning will be discussed for comparing authors analysis. Lipman (1993) highlighted the idea that, presenting the observation of scientists and their study results is no longer different from the presentation of interpretation of the external world by the novelists. The author analyzed that, both the scientists and novelists shape and interprets the raw materials for conveying message with the reflection of their previous vision and social context. The author used the term geneticization for analyzing the influence of genetics as a tool for explaining health and disease and normal condition (Lippman, 1993). The geneticization has been defined as the tool for differentiation of one person from another from their genetic origin and defining disorders as genetic in origin. The author revealed that some general issues are present across racial, social status, ethnic and income differences which has been highlighted as worry in case of ethics in genetic screening. The author described different prenatal tests for determining fetuss chromosomal composition from which sex of the fetus can be determined. The worry about the fact is that the reproductive technologies are developing as gendered, so the societal powers and privileges in local screening processes are shaping womens experience of motherhood (Lippman, 1993). It is a major question that if the woman is making decision of prenatal testing as a choice or it is the result of coercion or conformity. Society always reminds women to be responsible for her child by accepting prenatal testing without a question of choice. It has been revealed that prenatal testing is less valuable than the postnatal testing for identifying and infants genetic disease. Social power is pushing women to take decision of giving birth of their children based on the childrens inherited abilities and disabilities. It is an unethical behavior for the children because it is showing disrespect towards human right (Lippma n, 1993). The author suggested that society members should continuously question their own values as to why on the basis of ability is a fetus aborted and why is it socially encouraged. If the child with a disability is a problem, then the prenatal screening cannot be a solution (Lippman, 1993). The well being of a child cannot be separated from the mothers wellbeing and social, economical and political neglect effects the childs mental and physical growth more than the genes. Therefore, the society should empower womens choice of prenatal testing which is an ethical concern. In the research work, Juengst (2004) has stated about the FACE facts as to why human genetics will all the time provoke bioethics. Over the last few decades, comparative large amount of the U.S. taxpayers money were spent in trying to anticipate as well as address the bioethical issues raised by advances in the study of human genetics probably more than any other set of issues in the specified field. However, it can be stated that everyone do not believe in bioethics, but on the other hand, some do believe in bioethics, as they believe that there are more issues in this world to discuss. It has been seen that interest of bioethics in the generic research work based issues predispose the availability of the research findings for the specific topic. However, it has been noticed that the challenges of the new genetics comprise one of the indigenous themes for the bioethics. From Juengsts (2004)point of view, the bioethical concern in genetic research is not only the artifact or reflecti on of current funding or problems created by genetic science; rather it is the human genetics supporting morality for justifying the continuous prominence of the future bioethics agenda. Genetic testing provides information about hereditary facts before birth, from the bioethical viewpoint; genetic information reveals secret future information which should not be revealed without consents. Genetic information offers the preview of upcoming chapter in peoples life (Juengst, 2004). On the other hand, the four public identity features has long histories of cross-cultural use and abuse, the family role, community membership, ethnic affiliation and ancestral origins and these features are highlighted as FACE genetics by the author. Ethical issues have been raised regarding these issues when challenged by genetic information. It has been stated by a famous scientist that, we thought that our fate was in stars, but now we are familiar with genetics(Juengst, 2004). Bioethics criticizes it as too deterministic. Genetic privacy is a useful tool of regulating unfair use of genetic information. Bioethics will help to include moral implications of genetics for inherent public dim ensions of public identity. In the article provided by Kass (1997), the major focus is the ethical concerns of human cloning. It has been highlighted that, it is difficult now to express common and respectful understanding of protection, sexuality, nascent life, family and motherhood, fatherhood through the changes in broader culture. Cloning is the ideal solution for monogamous marriage, the ultimate single-parent child (Kass, 1997). Through cloning, people can work on their wishes and needs related to the baby, the identity of the child, so there will exist no link with the ancestor origin. The significance of human cloning cannot be underestimated or what is involved cannot be misunderstood. Cloning can include the use of laboratory techniques for manipulating the quality of genes, for gaining better babies. The genetically manipulation in cloning will become common in the laboratories upon acceptance of human cloning, for gaining a beautiful, talented, strong, with good inherited genes in babies, for making a good genetic race through their babies with superior genes (Kass, 1997). The repugnance is an emotional expression of wisdom over the reasons power to express. Here the repugnance is against excessive human willfulness. The morality of cloning depends upon the human intensions. Liberty sets the context of cloning regarding rights, personal empowerment, and freedom. The major thing to worry in this context is, beyond violating the willingness as symbolic is unreal (Kass, 1997). The ethical judgment upon cloning cannot be reduced regarding motives and intentions. The question is, whether cloning is a fulfillment of betterment of human belonging or not. The moral argument is related to those who are willing to state the repugnance of humankind to be mere superstitious. Human cloning also oppose the natural occurrence of sexual reproduction, thereby questioning against human origin and existence, as cloning needs only one biological progenitor for a child(Kass, 1997). According to Lippman (1993), genetics is often used in metaphor with the genes, blueprints, texts and DNA fragments which are capable of describing the human diseases and disorders. Moreover, he is also of the belief that the genetic process, which he calls as geneticization would be helpful in mapping the sequence of human genomes (Lippman, 1993). According to him, genetics also has a widespread application in the prenatal diagnosis which is a process comprising of the multiple testing and screening procedures that are used in assessing the physical status of the embryo or fetus during the pregnancy in women. Kass (1997) in his article The Wisdom of Repugnance has emphasized on the advantages of the innovative technology related to the cloning process by postulating that the cloning process would help the humans in springing from the natural living being as a human to being a God in the field of the genetics and reproduction. He claimed that cloning is the neutral technique that doe s not inherit any goodness, but is subjected to multiple advantages. According to Juengst (2004), genetics has the potential of revealing the essentials secrets of the individuals through the analysis of the respective genomes. Similar to the thinking of Lippman (1993), Juengst (2004) is also in the support of the opinion that genetics study also helps in deciphering the inner most self and workings of our bodies (Juengst, 2004). According to Lippman (1993), genetics involved with the prenatal analysis in women may raise a fundamental concern related to the health of women, their bodies and their societal roles as well. He believes that the women in our current societies are already differentiated, disadvantageous, vulnerable and powerless owing to their diminished status and challenges being faced in the prejudicial standards. Thus, the societal powers and privileges as incorporated in the prenatal screening procedures would be making the women to become more vulnerable to the social issues (Lippman, 1993). Kass (1997) argued that the flurry of the expert comments, opinion polls and public conservation, the then US President Bill Clinton had imposed a ban on all the federal support on the research relating to the human cloning. In addition, he also charged the National Bioethics Advisory Committee to be reporting on the ethics related to their human cloning research (Kass, 1997). According to Juengst (2004), though the genetics has constituted the main ingredient for the genetic research, it can be evident that only 11% of the Bioethics literature has been addressing the genetics (Juengst, 2004). The main reason behind this ignorance of the subject is due to the waxing and waning of the topic over the time. Although genetics help us in describing our disorders and disabilities within ourselves, Lippman (1993) believed that this would be acting against the ethics as it would be influencing our attitudes and values in the process (Lippman, 1993). According to Kass (1997), despite the ban on the cloning, scientists have been secretly violating the law by indulging in the researching on the genetics which has already created a deep impact in the medical world by giving us an artificially reproduced sheep named Dolly. He believes that our bioethics, claiming to be the expertise in moral matters, is itself responsible for banning the cloning process by deeming it to be harming the body integrity, individuality and identity of the humans (Kass, 1997). Juengst (2004) claimed that there has been a bloom in the literature owing to the research on the ethical, logical and social implications (ELSI) related to the subject since the last decade. Moreover, the US has been spending a lot of money on i nvestigating on the implications of the advancement in the genetics specially related to the humans (Juengst, 2004). In conclusion, it can be said that, the biological studies and researches should be done following the ethical considerations for betterment of human race and environment. These three articles highlighted the unethical activities in the society which are reflecting negative effects upon human race. The prenatal testing is reducing the freedom of choice in women for giving birth to their children. In the similar context, cloning is manipulating the natural existence of human and the FACE facts are affecting public identify with the power of society, politics and ethnicity. Reference List Juengst, E. T. (2004). FACE facts: why human genetics will always provoke bioethics.The Journal of Law, Medicine Ethics,32(2), 267-275. Kass, L. R. (1997). Wisdom of repugnance: why we should ban the cloning of humans, the.Val. UL Rev.,32, 679. Lippman, A. (1993). Worryingand worrying aboutthe geneticization of reproduction and health.Misconceptions: The social construction of choice and the new reproductive technologies,1, 39-65.