Introduction
Harris thinks that intervention such as gene therapy is appropriate when it is being used to promote the wellness and autonomy of an individual. John Harris claims that gene therapy cannot completely be termed as a form of eugenics. Vaughn (518) states, “…there is in short no moral difference between attempts to cure dysfunction and attempts to enhance function where the enhancement protects life or health.”
Discussion
Additionally, when it is consistent with the principles of justice and non-maleficence. He confirms that it should not be utilized in the enhancement of specific traits or discriminate against particular people or groups (Vaughn, 518). For instance, Vaughn (518) asks, “Is it morally wrong to wish and hope for a fine baby girl or boy?” Harris stresses the significance of informed consent and the need for continuous ethical assessment as the field of gene therapy continues to change. In general, he believes that gene therapy is a great form of intervention when it is ethically used and guided by a thorough consideration of the relevant ethical principles.
Contrary to Harris’ perspective on the matter, it is important to understand that his view raises serious ethical concerns and must be approached with care. Critics have argued that gene therapy has the capability to perpetuate discrimination and inequalities and may result in eugenics, where medical interventions are utilized to better particular traits in the population. They have determined that the intervention may disregard autonomy by changing genetic makeup in a manner that is less fully controlled or understood (Vaughn, 519).
Conclusion
There are other issues concerning the long-term consequences of gene therapy and the possibility of unintended harm to other generations. These highlight the need for continuous ethical evaluation and debate in the fields to guarantee that it is utilized in an ethical and responsible way.