Philosophy 2240C Dr.

Henry

Christine Rai February 6, 2012

First Writing Assignment The rapid sophistication of medical science has raised important ethical questions and issues that hadnt been considered in earlier generations. In the early development of medical science, people have been trying to alter the natural course of life with alchemy and other scientific pursuits to slow down the process of aging. Scientists and philosophers alike put their faith in science to discover an elixir to immortality but failed. Today, scientists are able to perform actions that were once unfathomable. Some of these feats include designer babies where parents can choose desirable traits that they want their future offspring to have including gender, eye color and skin pigmentation. With advancements such as these and developments in superficial endeavors like plastic surgery, our desire to improve and enhance humans may bring more detrimental than beneficial outcomes in the future if there isnt strong ethical contemplation over the consequences on trying to genetically and technologically improve future generations through science. I personally believe that if we continue to try and perfect humans through genetic selection , genetic variation of people will be lost, prejudices will be amplified, and the human race will not be improved at all, I only see this as a catalyst for disaster. In 2009, a majority of countries banned genetic selection of embryos based on physical attributes but the United States did not. Selectively implanting embryos is not a new practice and have been done in in vitro fertilization after screening for potentially life threatening genetically linked diseases. It has also been done for gender selection and if the parents wanted their child to have the same disorder as them, life deafness. But now as technology has become more sophisticated and we are able to

map the interactions between genes and the outcomes they have in a developing fetus, scientists are able to allow parents to choose physical attributes. In the future, it will be possible to choose certain things such as height, athletic ability and intelligence. Although there is not a one hundred percent guarantee of the offspring having the desired attributes, the likelihood is around eighty percent which is significantly higher than if it were left up to nature. I am usually an advocate on the importance and wonders of science and using them to bring us forward as a society but in the case of genetically selecting desirable characteristics, I do not think our knowledge should be used in that realm. If we use our abilities to choose the dispositions and appearance of our children, I do not think we will ever be able to accept each other for which we are and see the beauty in our imperfections. I think technology will drive us to try and improve humanity but there are certain things that I do not think should be altered. However, the questions is raised at where should the line be drawn in relation to how much we are able to alter the outcome of a pregnancy. Why should we be able to choose the gender of a child but not choose its eye color? And in the future, what would be so wrong with wanting a child to be athletic or intelligent? I think the line should be drawn where we should not be able to effect the outcome of qualities that are not life threatening. Part of being a good parent is loving your child unconditionally and I feel like embryonic genetic selection alters this in some way if the parent chooses what they want from their child. Moreover, I predict there being one mass societal view on what is deemed acceptable and with this there would be less variation in human kind. And those that are different from the idealized view of a person will be ostracized or at least discriminated because they are not have desirable qualities like the masses. The story The Birthmark by Nathaniel Hawthorne illustrates the desire for perfection with the aid of medical science without a full appreciation for the imperfections we all have. The

scientist Aylmer has a beautiful and loving wife but was obsessed with getting rid of a birthmark she had on her face in order for her to possess the full potential of her beauty if she did not have the blemish on her face. Aylmer lost sight of appreciating his wife and realizing that there was nothing wrong with her and her birthmark should not have been seen as a detriment but instead a unique quirk. He held his faith in science and tried to get rid of her birthmark so she could be perfect in his eyes but on this quest, he was withdrawn from her and made her feel terrible about herself because of her birthmark. Eventually Aylmer is able to get rid of his wifes birthmark but it cost his wifes life. Aylmer had good intentions but with his desire to use medical advancements to improve something that was not even a problem, he killed his wife. I think this is an important story to consider when thinking about modern day advancements in medicine. We look at improving qualities that do not need to be improved and should be accepted instead. With the option to improve oneself through plastic surgery or selecting desirable traits for ones child, we are not satisfied with what we have and will always strive for a deluded perfection that could never be achieved when we should appreciate the imperfections we all possess.

Resources: 1. http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/health/genetics/4340490 2. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,989987,00.html 3. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/03/03/earlyshow/health/main4840346. shtml