Affirmative Case: March/April 1999

A young couple walks into the obstitrition's office. They are very excited because this will be their first child. As an extra precaution, they decide to screen the baby for any genetic diseases or disorders. Amniocentesis is scheduled and performed. When the doctor comes back with the test results, he tells them that the baby is diagnosed with a rare disease: tay-sachs. Tay-Sachs is an always fatal disease where the child will die by the age of two or three. If genetic engineering were able to cure the baby, wouldn't the parents take the cure and save the baby's life? Of course they would. It is scenarios such as this that leads me to affirm the resolution which states Resolved: That Human Genetic Engineering is Morally Justified.

To make sure the resolution is clear I offer the following definitions taken from Webster's Dictionary:
*genetic engineering- the work on biological improvements in a species through manipulation of the genetic code.
*morally- to right conduct or duties; ethical; virtuous
*justified- defensible; excusable

For today's round I will uphold the intrinsic value of quality of life supported through the instrumental value of human genetic engineering. Quality of life is a measure of how good or how bad life is. A higher quality of life can be obtained through human genetic engineering. Human genetic engineering has the potential to cure diseases and therefore raise the quality of life.

I will support my values through the criteria of teleological ethics. Teleological ethics is based on the concept that any particular course of conduct or moral obligation is regarded as acceptable and moral if it tends to produce a greater balance of good than do possible alternatives. If we allow genetic engineering we have the greatest balance of good because it would cure diseases and raise the quality of life.

I will uphold the resolution with three contentions: Human Genetic Engineering would increase quality of life, We have a moral obligation to allow human genetic engineering, and the consequences of not allowing human genetic engineering.

Let's first direct our attention to contention one: Human Genetic Engineering would increase the quality of life.
It would increase the quality of life by preventing diseases from birth and make our medicine more efficient. Each year many children are born with terrible disorders such as cystic fibrosis, down syndrome, hemophilia, huntington's disease, sickle-cell anemia, and tay-sachs. Many of these involve painful suffering or even death. Through genetic engineering we might be able to find a cure to these diseases and give these children an opportunity for a better life and a chance to live. As Dr. Manger once said, "Genetic diseases were long a source of parent's nightmares. They were incurable and deadly, but now with genetic engineering, there is definitely a torch of hope shining at the end of the tunnel, all because of genetic engineering." Also, human genetic engineering could be used to make drugs more effective. Scientists have recently been able to help unclog coronary arteries by injecting genes that unclog the arteries. Also, many diabetics who require insulin that has been genetically engineered are also being helped. By getting insulin that has been engineered to match their genes there is no chance of rejection unlike the insulin from animals. The technology is there and can help us raise the quality of life so we should use it which brings me to my next contention:

Contention two: We have a moral obligation to allow human genetic engineering.
If we believe that we can cure certain diseases we should seek to cure them. Ropbin Heing once said, "If something is broken(i.e. the human genome) don't we have a moral obligation to fix it?" If someone has a painful disease such as cystic fibrosis that can be cured through genetic engineering it is certainty considered moral to cure it. The Hippocratic Oath even states, "I will prescribe regimen for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone." By withholding genetic engineering we are withholding possible cures and not allowing doctors to cure their patients. If a pregnant woman knows that she will have a baby with Tay-sachs and it could be cured, doesn't she have the moral obligation to undergo genetic engineering to save her baby's life rather than let her child die? According to Immanuel Kant, "A parent possesses... the duty of preserving... children... this act, therefore, attaches an obligation to the parents." Genetic engineering clearly provides good by allowing cures to be found to diseases, if we don't allow genetic engineering we may have some bad consequences which brings me to

Contention Three: The consequences of not allowing human genetic engineering.
Each year, thousands of people die of genetic diseases such as tay-sachs, hemophilia A, and cystic fibrosis. These are genetic diseases and cannot be cured by antibiotics alone. If we continue like we are now, these people will continue to die and the genes will continue to be spread. Huntington's disease is not even noticeable until the person reaches their 30's or 40's so possible carriers will not know about it until it is too late and already passed on to future generations. Also we would hurt diabetics and other people who need special medications. Some insulin is engineered to match the genes of the diabetic, when we do not allow this some diabetics would die. We would also lose progress with medicine. Science right now has found ways to use genetic engineering to unclog arteries in the leg. If we could improve this technology, someday it could be used to prevent heart attacks. Our technology is OK now but it could be better. Right now thousands of people die or suffer from genetic diseases that can possibly be cured someday through human genetic engineering.

In conclusion, I have given you three specific reasons to affirm the resolution which were human genetic engineering would increase quality of life, we have a moral obligation to allow human genetic engineering, and the alternatives to human genetic engineering. {recap as time allows}. For all these reasons human genetic engineering is moral because it can increase our quality of life. As Christopher Delaney once said, "As a general rule, we consider it good to reduce human suffering and enhance standards of living. Great medical benefits are to be discovered through genetic engineering."

I am now open for cross examination.