 |
 |
Dear Lavanya, You asked some thought-provoking questions and for that I applaud you. I have been thinking about this for some time while doing some research on these very questions. Concerning your first question regarding the human genome project let me share with you this: We are now entering a phase in human development where we can offer the promise of a great benefit to all persons in all parts of the world. But we do this because we're able to alter the fundamental building blocks of life. Way back and 1982 the President's Commission for the study of ethical problems in medicine and biomedical and behavioral research stated, "The recently acquired capability to manipulate the genetic material all living things is an important-even revolutionary-advance in the trajectory of human knowledge. But like revolutionary insights of the past that enrich understanding, it also unsettles notions that once seemed fixed and comfortable. " Have having the complete genetic blueprint for us as humans will transform our medicine. Who knows what kinds of new drugs and new kinds of treatments that will be developed. Who knows what kind of understanding we will begin to have of genetic defects and the code that produces them. I think the greatest concern is one of genetic engineering that is to say having the ability to alter the basic structure our humanity. As an example I want to share with you some genetic engineering technology that has been developed or rather sure this is being developed for delivering the insulin gene back into a person with diabetes. Now take this to the extreme and you can alter the expression of any gene. Which offers us the hope of a cure for all chronic illnesses including our own challenge with Parkinson's. But it also opens up the Pandora's box of just exactly what is a disability or disorder is. What is our concept of normal as opposed to desirable. And we haven't even reached the subject of who would have access to one's personal genetic information. So you can see that there's a whole milieu of unanswered questions. Which brings us to your second question of how do we safeguard against these pitfalls. And my only answer that I can think of with respect to your question is, bioethics. And even though the term may seem a rather new one consider the Oath of Hippocrates, isn't that a form of bioethics? So what I'm saying is that bioethics takes an account patients' rights, things like autonomy non malfeasance and Justice. The medical professionals from what I've read rely on four basic principles to guide them in bioethics. And they are beneficence which is the duty to do good for the patient. Then there's nonmaleficence, in other words to do no harm. There's also the patient's right for self-determination otherwise known as autonomy. And Justice, treating others with reasonable fairness and equity with the and not discriminating against some. Suffice it to say there are many groups involved in setting policy in making decisions with regard to bioethics and if I can find them I will forward to you someone web-sites off list. Lavanya, you've got me off to some heavy thinking this morning and I think of going to have to call in sick to work! I'd like to continue with our conversation because this also affects the whole thorny stem cell issue. Bioethical questions or the rule the day and seem to be driving many legislative agendas. Thanks again for your questions I'm going to rest my brain now. Sincerely. Terry Bowers ----- Original Message ----- From: "vmehra" <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 1:31 AM Subject: Stem Cell > If I were to ask you, what is the biggest fear in allowing Genome research > to go on, then what do you think it is? > And what do you think can be a safeguard against whatever pitfalls there > are. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask] In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn