Before class today I was thinking of writing about the ethics of crispr gene editing from the view of utilitarianism. Crispr cas9 gene editing can be theoretically used to prevent genetic diseases in new born babies. Hearing David Singer’s view of what is the equivalent of Spartans leaving miss-formed babies on a hill to die helps me narrow down the author to use for my argument. I just need to figure out how I am going to argue because I do not know which stance to take.
This technology has the possibility of providing a large number of people the benefit of correcting their genetic disease. One area of use is in treating Alzheimer patients. The ethical problem comes with the use in fetuses. Will this treatment be what the grown up fetus will have wanted or does the ease of mind the parents have cancel this out in the utility calculation? Is it right to use this on a fetus to prevent down syndrome? How do you measure the quality of life for someone who has a genetic disease. I remember seeing an advocacy group speaking in front of congress about the legality of aborting a known fetus that has down syndrome. People with down syndrome testified saying their lives were worth it.
Joey's Blog 
FYI, it’s Peter Singer, not David. You’ve got great material to work with here and it makes sense to add utilitarianism to to the conversation on crispr gene editing. Spend some time thinking through how a utilitarian (Bentham, Mill or Singer) would respond, but keep in mind how you feel/think about it. It’s ok if you don’t take a stance right away, but think about how utilitarianism might help us decide what to think about crispr gene editing. This could definitely make for a great paper 1–just make sure you think through what you want your argument to be.
LikeLike