When I first read the topic, “Is genetic enhancement an unacceptable use of technology?” my first
thought was yes it is very unacceptable. After reading the arguments I still believe that yes this is
unacceptable. Although my faith and beliefs may come into play with this, I still believe I would think
this to be wrong. I love all of my children, they are all different. I wanted a daughter and then a son, my
second child was another daughter, I do not know what I would do without her. I thought about this, if
I had been able to choose would I have chosen a son and then no more children? It is an awful thought,
one of my children is very artistic, two are very athletic, this was by teaching them and I wouldn’t want
them to be any different than they are.
The Major Thesis:
Political Philosopher, Michael J. Sandel explains his belief that genetic technology is a “flawed attempt
at human mastery”. He also explains it also “banishes appreciation of life as a gift”.
If genetic enhancement is used we can treat and/or prevent diseases although we will be manipulating
With genetic enhancement we could stop muscular dystrophy . We could choose the sex of our
children, we could change their height and improve their memory.
H.L. Sweeney is hoping he can cure the mobility issues the elderly have. Through his research even
though it has not been approved for human use, many athletes are interested in it.
One opinion was the concern for rich and the poor, these enhancement treatments are very expensive so
some won’t be able to afford it.
Sandel argues that genetic enhancement is morally wrong.
Whatever one’s presumed character or bodily flaw, there is a remedy.
Is the scenario troubling because the unenhanced poor would be denied the benefits of bioengineering
or because the enhanced affluent would somehow be dehumanized?
One technique was playing on possibly religious beliefs by saying genetic enhancement is morally
wrong. “Worrying about access ignores the moral status of enhancement itself”.
Another technique was making people afraid that because of their social class the poor would have
limited availability of genetic enhancement.
Genetic enhancements will cause some parents to get carried away with making sure their children are
the smartest, tallest, the best athlete or the best musician.
Genetic enhancements will change people to rely on genetics instead of trying to succeed in life on
The Main Thesis:
Howard Trachtmans article stated that we should not be afraid of genetic enhancement. The medical
society should be excited to inspire health and wellness.
In the early 1970’s immunizations became routine.
Neonatal care will result in higher statistics of survival of babies born with low birth weights.
There may be a longer life span which would cause more cases of cancer and dementia.
Trachtman expressed his belief that physicians maintain unrealistic views that therapeutic interventions
could result from genetic advancements. Trachtman also believes that if genetic enhancement becomes
widely available the majority of people will not want it.
Physicians and bioethecists should have unrealistic views and apprehensions about therapeutic
interventions that may come about because of advances in genetics. Trachtmam alleges every human
endeavor goes through a time of anticipation that the end is near.
Trachtman brings up different points in history where science has made things better.
Trachtman claims that if people live longer there will be more cancer and dementia. Although an
improvement in neonatal would result in higher percentage of babies surviving that had low birth
I believe Michael Sandel is more biased with his morality issues. Even though I felt he was biased I
agree with his argument. A lot of people believe our children have to be perfect, I do not believe that.
I do not think we should use genetic enhancements to alter human growth, for athletic or mental
abilities. As far as engineering the sex of a child is just wrong. We should be happy with any child we
get no matter their sex or abilities.
I think Michael Sandels “yes” theory was more empirical with examples he gave of morals and how
parents would act.
I side with Michael Sandel, I believe we need to create our children without genetic engineering. We
need technology for somethings but to create a more “perfect” child is just not appropriate. I believe
we should be happy and blessed with the children we get without genetic enhancement.