● somatic gene therapy-Techniques which usually lack such intergenerational consequences.
● Germ-line therapy-Techniques which permit the alteration of sperm and eggs, or early products of conception, such that the changes become permanently encoded in the sex cells of the resulting adult.
● Positive gene therapy
● Negative gene therapy
● active euthanasia
● passive euthanasia
● voluntary euthanasia
● involuntary euthanasia
● physician-assisted suicide- that isn’t itself a bad or impermissible result to aim
● Triage- Emergency triage foreseeably leading to the deaths of the untreated.
● Eugenics-enhancement -- altering genes to improve phenotypical characteristics in favorable ways.
● Difference thesis- it is worse to kill than let die.
● Doctrine of double effect
● Principle of Caution
● Difference thesis
Know the answer to the following questions regarding the articles:
General issues regarding genetic engineering
Why do some people argue that it is morally significant whether germ lines are directly affected (in germ line therapy)or only indirectly affected (in somatic gene therapy)?
aimed at changing the genotype of future generations is impermissible. therapeutic are permissible somatic-do not affect the intergenration
Germ-line therapy: directed at the reproductive cells, and so passed on to future generations
Somatic gene therapy: intended to affect the somatic or body cells of individuals BUT can indirectly affect germ cells as well è permissible via the law of double effect!
What does the doctrine/law of double effect have to do with this argument?
Doctrine of Double Effect: an act which is otherwise morally unacceptable may be permissible if it is the inevitable and unavoidable result of carrying out primarily morally desirable interventions.
(b) Recipients of such treatment ought not to reproduce "until we had a chance to vouchsafe the genetic integrity of their reproductive cells"
Why do many people believe that gene therapy is permissible while genetic enhancement is not?
risk to future generations parent used as a means to achieve eugenic effect in offspring
Therapy relieve human suffering
“Questions About Some Uses of Genetic Engineering”
What is the main argument of the article? our resistance to genetic improvement of the human race is based on a complex of different values and reasons, none of which is sufficient to rule out in principle the positive(adding traits) use of genetic engineering
What are the three methods of changing the genetic composition of future generations mentioned by Glover?
1) Environmental changes
2) Use of eugenic policies aimed at altering breeding patterns (ex. Genetic counseling or even various kinds of compulsion
3) Genetic engineering using enzymes to add to or subtract from DNA
What is the principle of caution? we should alter genes only where we have strong reasons for thinking the risk of disaster is very small, and where the benefit is great enough to justify the risk
What does Glover mean by the “genetic supermarket”?
One solution to the problem of having one group of people impose their views on the world is to have parents choose their children’s characteristics
“The Moral Significance of the Therapy-Enhancement Distinction in Human Genetics”
Does Resnik believe that the therapy-enhancement distinction is morally significant? Why or why not? ehh the therapy-enhancement distinction does not mark a firm boundary between moral and immoral genetic interventions, and genetic enhancement is not inherently immoral
Does Resnik believe that genetic enhancement is inherently immoral?
Since genetic therapy serves morally legitimate goals, it is morally acceptable; but since genetic enhancement serves morally questionable goals, it is not morally acceptable
You should know the main points Resnik discusses in his article (e.g., the concepts of health and disease, changing the human form