As the science related to genetic engineering becomes more advanced, more and more ethical questi... more As the science related to genetic engineering becomes more advanced, more and more ethical questions relating to technologies such as CRISPR and preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) arise. If we have the opportunity to choose the genes of our future children in order have children with our desired characteristics, should we do so? Is it okay to mess with some genes of your future child and not others? In this paper, I discuss arguments and objections associated with these questions. The aim of this paper is to show that it is ethical to alter the DNA of your future child or select a specific child only when you are attempting to improve the health of that child. Many might find the possibility of designing their own baby exciting. What could be better than creating the exact baby that you have always dreamed of? While it is easy to fantasize about the positives of genetic engineering, when we really dig deep into what such technology would mean for society, many problems emerge. How do we decide which genes are ethical to alter and which aren't? In this paper, I argue that it is unethical to alter your future child's genes or select a certain embryo unless you are doing so in order to improve the child's health. My paper is organized in the following way: In section 1, I explain current genetic technologies. In section 2, I present Julian Savulescu and Guy Kahane's argument in favor of genetic enhancements. In section 3, I explain Martha Nussbaum's objective list theory of well-being. In section 4, I discuss arguments related to the differences between wanting good health for your child and wanting your child to have extraordinary abilities. In section 5, I present the Prevention of Suffering View, a view I find to be stronger than Savulescu and Kahane's view explained in section 2. In section 6, I discuss the eugenic objection. In section 7, I discuss Elizabeth Barnes' disability objection. In section 8, I discuss Michael Sandel's 'Life is a Gift' objection. In section 9, I discuss equality in relation to genetic engineering. I conclude my findings in section 10.
Results: Veterans who began treatment with clinically elevated depression or anxiety experienced ... more Results: Veterans who began treatment with clinically elevated depression or anxiety experienced a 42% reduction in symptom severity, as measured by the nine-item Patient Health Questionnaire or by the seven-item Generalized Anxiety Disorder questionnaire, respectively, representing large effect sizes. Conclusions: Significant decreases in depression and anxiety symptoms suggest the utility of DIT for veterans with comorbid general medical conditions. DIT's dynamically informed framework may improve patients' help seeking, which is relevant for patients experiencing comorbid medical conditions.
As the science related to genetic engineering becomes more advanced, more and more ethical questi... more As the science related to genetic engineering becomes more advanced, more and more ethical questions relating to technologies such as CRISPR and preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) arise. If we have the opportunity to choose the genes of our future children in order have children with our desired characteristics, should we do so? Is it okay to mess with some genes of your future child and not others? In this paper, I discuss arguments and objections associated with these questions. The aim of this paper is to show that it is ethical to alter the DNA of your future child or select a specific child only when you are attempting to improve the health of that child. Many might find the possibility of designing their own baby exciting. What could be better than creating the exact baby that you have always dreamed of? While it is easy to fantasize about the positives of genetic engineering, when we really dig deep into what such technology would mean for society, many problems emerge. ...
As the science related to genetic engineering becomes more advanced, more and more ethical questi... more As the science related to genetic engineering becomes more advanced, more and more ethical questions relating to technologies such as CRISPR and preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) arise. If we have the opportunity to choose the genes of our future children in order have children with our desired characteristics, should we do so? Is it okay to mess with some genes of your future child and not others? In this paper, I discuss arguments and objections associated with these questions. The aim of this paper is to show that it is ethical to alter the DNA of your future child or select a specific child only when you are attempting to improve the health of that child. Many might find the possibility of designing their own baby exciting. What could be better than creating the exact baby that you have always dreamed of? While it is easy to fantasize about the positives of genetic engineering, when we really dig deep into what such technology would mean for society, many problems emerge. How do we decide which genes are ethical to alter and which aren't? In this paper, I argue that it is unethical to alter your future child's genes or select a certain embryo unless you are doing so in order to improve the child's health. My paper is organized in the following way: In section 1, I explain current genetic technologies. In section 2, I present Julian Savulescu and Guy Kahane's argument in favor of genetic enhancements. In section 3, I explain Martha Nussbaum's objective list theory of well-being. In section 4, I discuss arguments related to the differences between wanting good health for your child and wanting your child to have extraordinary abilities. In section 5, I present the Prevention of Suffering View, a view I find to be stronger than Savulescu and Kahane's view explained in section 2. In section 6, I discuss the eugenic objection. In section 7, I discuss Elizabeth Barnes' disability objection. In section 8, I discuss Michael Sandel's 'Life is a Gift' objection. In section 9, I discuss equality in relation to genetic engineering. I conclude my findings in section 10.
Results: Veterans who began treatment with clinically elevated depression or anxiety experienced ... more Results: Veterans who began treatment with clinically elevated depression or anxiety experienced a 42% reduction in symptom severity, as measured by the nine-item Patient Health Questionnaire or by the seven-item Generalized Anxiety Disorder questionnaire, respectively, representing large effect sizes. Conclusions: Significant decreases in depression and anxiety symptoms suggest the utility of DIT for veterans with comorbid general medical conditions. DIT's dynamically informed framework may improve patients' help seeking, which is relevant for patients experiencing comorbid medical conditions.
As the science related to genetic engineering becomes more advanced, more and more ethical questi... more As the science related to genetic engineering becomes more advanced, more and more ethical questions relating to technologies such as CRISPR and preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) arise. If we have the opportunity to choose the genes of our future children in order have children with our desired characteristics, should we do so? Is it okay to mess with some genes of your future child and not others? In this paper, I discuss arguments and objections associated with these questions. The aim of this paper is to show that it is ethical to alter the DNA of your future child or select a specific child only when you are attempting to improve the health of that child. Many might find the possibility of designing their own baby exciting. What could be better than creating the exact baby that you have always dreamed of? While it is easy to fantasize about the positives of genetic engineering, when we really dig deep into what such technology would mean for society, many problems emerge. ...
Uploads
Papers by Bella Ratner