Mandatory In Utero Gene Therapy to Cure Disease

Mandatory: required by law or mandate; compulsory.[1]In Utero Gene Therapy: Altering the DNA of a foetus while still developing in the uterus in order to give it a more desirable strand of DNA. (I worded this definition myself)Disease: a disorder of structure or function in a human, animal, or plant, especially one that produces specific symptoms or that affects a specific location and is not simply a direct result of physical injury.[2]Why must it be mandatory for the parent to cure the disease that their child is born with if the disease itself is a part of their DNA? What you are saying is that if a person is meant to be a certain way, we should 'improve them' but what really is improving a person? What if by changing some parts of DNA we are in fact changing the person altogether and somehow preventing a genius' brain from forming properly, sure they would get parkinson's but would do so many useful things before their short life ends. What you fail to realise is that if you change one part of a person's DNA, you change the entire code and down the line it could easily prevent another part from developing properly. This is not medication, this is not simply plant genetic modification this is dealing with the animal that is claimed to have the most complex brain in the animal kingdom, we still haven't even scratched on the surface of how DNA affects the mind, what if the next Da Vinci was cured of parkinson's but then had another part of DNA altered to prevent them from being talented at art. What you are saying is you assume science is ANYWHERE NEAR the stage whereby we know that if we alter one part of the DNA, the rest stays fine, but in utero gene therapy is nothing to do with this. Scientific and ethical discussions about gene therapy began many years ago, but it was not until 1990 that the first approved human gene therapy clinical trial was initiated. This clinical trial was conducted on a rare autoimmune disorder called severe combined immune deficiency. This therapy was considered successful because it greatly improved the health and well-being of the few individuals who were treated during the trial. However, the success of the therapy was tentative, because along with the gene therapy the patients also continued receiving their traditional drug therapy. This made it difficult to determine the true effectiveness of the gene therapy on its own, as distinct from the effects of the more traditional therapy. Measuring the success of treatment is just one challenge of gene therapy. Research is fraught with practical and ethical challenges. As with clinical trials for drugs, the purpose of human gene therapy clinical trials is to determine if the therapy is safe, what dose is effective, how the therapy should be administered, and if the therapy works. Diseases are chosen for research based on the severity of the disorder (the more severe the disorder, the more likely it is that it will be a good candidate for experimentation), the feasibility of treatment, and predicted success of treatment based on animal models. This sounds reasonable. However, imagine you or your child has a serious condition for which no other treatment is available. How objective would your decision be about participating in the research? How do researchers determine which disorders or traits warrant gene therapy? Unfortunately, the distinction between gene therapy for disease genes and gene therapy to enhance desired traits, such as height or eye color, is not clear-cut. No one would argue that diseases that cause suffering, disability, and, potentially, death are good candidates for gene therapy. However, there is a fine line between what is considered a "disease" (such as the dwarfism disorder achondroplasia) and what is considered a "trait" in an otherwise healthy individual (such as short stature). Even though gene therapy for the correction of potentially socially unacceptable traits, or the enhancement of desirable ones, may improve the quality of life for an individual, some ethicists fear gene therapy for trait enhancement could negatively impact what society considers "normal" and thus promote increased discrimination toward those with the "undesirable" traits. As the function of many genes continue to be discovered, it may become increasingly difficult to define which gene traits are considered to be diseases versus those that should be classified as physical, mental, or psychological traits. To date, acceptable gene therapy clinical trials involve somatic cell therapies using genes that cause diseases. However, many ethicists worry that, as the feasibility of germ line gene therapy improves and more genes causing different traits are discovered, there could be a "slippery slope" effect in regard to which genes are used in future gene therapy experiments. Specifically, it is feared that the acceptance of germ line gene therapy could lead to the acceptance of gene therapy for genetic enhancement. Public debate about the issues revolving around germ line gene therapy and gene therapy for trait enhancement must continue as science advances to fully appreciate the appropriateness of these newer therapies and to lead to ethical guidelines for advances in gene therapy research. In the UK, permission to conduct gene therapy research has to be obtained from a Department of Health advisory body known as the Gene Therapy Advisory Committee (GTAC) in conjunction with the appropriate Local Research Ethics Committee and the Medicines Control Agency (MCA). Researchers are required to notify any adverse effects from their trials to all three of these bodies. GTAC operates six key principles when licensing gene therapy trials: 1. Gene therapy is research and not an innovative treatment because it has not yet been sufficiently developed. 2. Only somatic cell therapy should be considered. 3. In view of safety and ethical difficulties, germ line interventions are not allowed. 4. Gene therapy should be restricted to life-threatening disorders where no alternative effective treatments are available. 5. Patients should take part in gene therapy research trials only after a full explanation of the procedures, risks and benefits and after they have given their informed consent. 6. For those not able to give consent, including young children, the research must not put them at disproportionate risk. GTAC also considers that in utero gene therapy is not permissible Just consider this. Sources:[1] http://oxforddictionaries.com...;[2] http://oxforddictionaries.com...[3] http://www.answers.com...[4] http://www.twnside.org.sg...;