English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

I'd like to know your view regarding genetic mapping of the human genome. Some issues are insurance, philisophical; religious; quality of life; and funding to name a few. Please be genuine with your input. I already have a list of pros/cons in each but to top it off I think getting input from others here would make it interesting.

2007-09-19 08:06:35 · 2 answers · asked by get dent 3 in Arts & Humanities Philosophy

I agree, theres always going to be corruption somewhere. Some races are more prone to genetic diseases than other races, so, I can see exploitation there too.

2007-09-19 10:48:06 · update #1

2 answers

I have some practical concerns.

The health insurance system we have in this country leaves people at risk for having to pay themselves for preexisting conditions. One might be uncovered for many life threatening conditions. Suppose it can be shown that tests given to children show that one was going to have a developmental problem later in life and the parents change employers. The new insurance might not cover the medical procedures required at that time.

Government agencies might determine that a large percentage of people with a particular gene do something that is unacceptable at some stage of their life. The agency might take draconian actions that punish people who have done nothing wrong.

To make the many benefits to the individual of this technology available we must find a way of isolating the information from insurance companies and government agencies.

2007-09-23 07:45:21 · answer #1 · answered by anonimous 6 · 0 0

Fear mongers will always give us reason to second guess ourselves. In philosophy, developing ethics around this issue is very prudent. However, I find the potential of such science to far out weigh what the naysayers will argue on the subject.

A child, during pregnancy, that can be spared a life threatening and life altering illness through genetic mapping and genetic treatment is a good and solid step to reducing human suffering.

Religion will always rear its ugly head in these matters, so I think it is a non-issue. Just as with blood transfusion, organ transplant, wiser thinking ends up prevailing.

There will always be a segment of society that will abuse systems and processes in one way or another. However, denying such medical and scientific marvels is pretty much punishing the innocent or punishing the many because of the few.

I believe that most people are well intentioned enough to ensure that we go into any new science and technology with open eyes. I am also mindful of some of the objections being motivated by racism.

2007-09-19 08:33:29 · answer #2 · answered by guru 7 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers