The Ethical Dilemma Of Designing Babies

The ethical dilemma of designing babies

The design of babies is a technology that will eventually be available to anyone, not only because it is economical, fast and precise, but because the idea of designing a baby with the most perfect components that may exist is attractive, even whenThat implies discrimination of certain genetic characteristics.

Genetic manipulation is not something new, it has actually been used in other fields, such as food;However, with the birth of Louise Brown 40 years ago, man intervened in something that until then was not possible to control and that was the assisted help to create another human being, through in vitro fertilization.

In this short essay, I am not going to focus on specimens or that have been intervened when some preventable disease is detected, but in a couple of questions: what implies being "better" as a human being? And to what extent will the genetic modifications and manipulations arrive to achieve that ideal of improved human being, and in a way, perfect? CRISPR technology is so new, that if I only try to improve certain aspects of health, it would not be so bad. The problem perhaps, is that due to the few regulations (because the legal system has not been updated with this type of technology, which grows exponentially over the years and that seems taken from a science fiction book), and to the unknown that arises when you think how far you can reach.

The imaginary line that has been drawn with respect to the designed babies, has been running over the years, a clear example is in-vitro fertilization, which in its beginnings was so criticized and is now socially accepted.

There are also other considerations to take into account, even when you want to use this technology purely to eradicate diseases, every doctor and in general any person related to the health area, know that the immune system is strengthened thanks to a series of elementsand circumstances, and among these elements is exposure to diseases. From this point of view, even when an immune system that could evenof disease could cause the eradication of the species if an antigen came to break that utopian bubble (in the most extreme and tragic case of the situation). Here is more than obvious that the principle of non -maleficence would be broken. And although it is not yet clear what can happen to hacking the human genetic code, it is not difficult to imagine that this type of technology would be exclusive.

Let’s talk about the economic part (because it is obvious that it plays an important role), who cannot pay the modifications over time will be relegated, even marginalized and would be the only ones who would have to suffer from diseases, so they will not only be less healthy but lessReady and successful, which would go against the principle of justice and in a certain way, it would even make the principle of charity staggered, since resources would not be destined for a marginal population without genetic modifications, and doctors who would not have theirreach the best of technology (this is in fact very well known in public hospitals and the rular areas of our country)

With respect to the principle of autonomy, I would like to recapitulate a little, CRISPR offers the ability to edit living cells, turn off or turn on genes and choose specific DNA sequences in order to improve the human being and from this perspective, in medicine this principle this principleIt would not be lost, obviously assuming that the design of babies will not bring any collateral effect. However, personally, designing a person with certain specific characteristics, such as a musician or a super soldier, would take some autonomy about his life, although this is a more anthropological problem than a doctor.

Responses to the problem

Personally, I consider that it is too dangerous and unpredictable to design modified babies without strict and rigorous regulation;mainly because it is not known what the consequences or adverse effects will be. However, at the same time I know, that the arrival of Crisp is inevitable.

It is not something that will happen overnight, especially because it is most likely to slowly slide into our lives by focusing on the elimination of congenital diseases that are mortal, or that hinder life. However, just the technology progresses and is safer, the birth of the first completely modified baby will emerge, which will give way to a new stage in the history of the human being.

Let’s not forget that society’s opinion plays an important role in this situation, since eugenics tried to be implemented by the Nazis with the selection of the best genes and the subsequent elimination of those who considered less "pure".

At present, something as drastic as what was tried at that time does not happen, but there is a natural selection of the best genes when a couple is chosen, even an environmental manipulation by parents who try to make their children grow under the bestconditions for them to be the best in a certain field;The problem I personally see is the type of society to which this would take us. Obviously there will be opponents of genetic modification, especially religious groups (which throughout history have expressed their opinion and discontent against certain practices, focusing on medicine, the most extremist groups oppose the use of antibiotics, transfusionsof blood, organ transplants, vaccination or any minimum intervention that seems, since God owns and lord of life, and men cannot interfere in their desires; if death is what God wants, so it is), however, just as Amish have a firm and clear posture regarding technology, I think something similar will happen in this case and over time these groups will marginalize (as well as the Amish), to flee a world that,Under his eyes, he goes against God and everything he represents.

As you try to capture in this writing, the problem of baby design is multifactorial, it depends a lot on religious, anthropological, ethical, social and medical values when judging the acceptance of the same. That is why it is necessary to have an open and critical attitude, in order to discern or accept this new technology. It is also necessary to set limits, in order to contribute to human well -being and stop those who have particular interests of glory and greed.

In other words, this debate is multidisciplinary, it is a deliberation and exchange of knowledge, ideas and doubts. It is not about fearing technology, or demonizing the idea of genetic modification, we must only be prudent and cautious when implementing it.