UK scientists apply for licence to edit genes in human embryos

[Malthus]

People are free to risk their own lives and health. No one has to explore less dangerous means to get up a cliff than free climbing it.

The difference, of course, is that your doctor typically isn't helping you up that cliff.

Medical professionals are bound by professional ethics, and for one, I prefer them to be. 

[The Brain]

People are free to risk their own lives and health. No one has to explore less dangerous means to get up a cliff than free climbing it.

The difference, of course, is that your doctor typically isn't helping you up that cliff.

Medical professionals are bound by professional ethics, and for one, I prefer them to be. 

Why would you need a doctor to change your genes?

[DGuller]

Fair play? 

Preventing harmful arms race.

[Malthus]

Fair play? 

Preventing harmful arms race.

Now with extra arms! 

[crazy canuck]

And finally, we would probably agree that dwarfism is a genetic disorder.  But what about someone who has the genes to be really, really short?  Where do you draw the line?

Why shouldn't people be allowed to edit their own genes?

Same reason athletes shouldn't be allowed to dope.

I'm not an athlete. Are you saying I shouldn't be allowed to edit my own genome if I wanted?

Hell, we don't allow people to prescribe themselves drugs, let alone edit their own genome. 

Presumably he means with a doctor's note 

My answer was flippant, but my point was not. 

The reason why someone ought not to be able to" edit their own genome if they want" is that the impetus for serious and dangerous medical procedures ought, ethically, to come from the health care professionals with the agreement of the patient - after all alternatives have been explored, to ensure that the one with the greatest benefit, and least risk, is chosen.

Ultimately, yes, such editing would be with the informed consent of the patient, but it should be in response to some sort of serious medical concern, not on a whim, and taken after fully reviewing all the options.

So you wouldn't permit any cosmetic or optional medical procedures?  I suspect that horse has already left the barn 

[Malthus]

So you wouldn't permit any cosmetic or optional medical procedures?  I suspect that horse has already left the barn 

Looks like you haven't read my previous post where I deal with this exact issue ... 

[crazy canuck]

So you wouldn't permit any cosmetic or optional medical procedures?  I suspect that horse has already left the barn 

Looks like you haven't read my previous post where I deal with this exact issue ... 

No, I did.  I find your position hard to understand or at least inconsistent.

[Malthus]

So you wouldn't permit any cosmetic or optional medical procedures?  I suspect that horse has already left the barn 

Looks like you haven't read my previous post where I deal with this exact issue ... 

No, I did.  I find your position hard to understand or at least inconsistent.

Seems simple enough to me - professional ethics requires that the physician undertaking the plan to intervene medically weighs potential benefits against risks. Where the benefits are (say) "potentially saving your life", greater risks are ethically acceptable; where the potential benefits are "I think this body modification would look cool", there is less tolerance for risk.

While ultimately any decision must be approved by a patient with full informed consent, this weighing exercise is contrary to a more libertarian approach of 'my body, my decision', in which the doctor merely rubber-stamps his or her patient's decision to (say) edit their genes as they please, for whatever reason they want.

What's the difficulty or inconsistency with that?

[crazy canuck]

So you wouldn't permit any cosmetic or optional medical procedures?  I suspect that horse has already left the barn 

Looks like you haven't read my previous post where I deal with this exact issue ... 

No, I did.  I find your position hard to understand or at least inconsistent.

Seems simple enough to me - professional ethics requires that the physician undertaking the plan to intervene medically weighs potential benefits against risks. Where the benefits are (say) "potentially saving your life", greater risks are ethically acceptable; where the potential benefits are "I think this body modification would look cool", there is less tolerance for risk.

While ultimately any decision must be approved by a patient with full informed consent, this weighing exercise is contrary to a more libertarian approach of 'my body, my decision', in which the doctor merely rubber-stamps his or her patient's decision to (say) edit their genes as they please, for whatever reason they want.

What's the difficulty or inconsistency with that?

I don't disagree with that restatement.

But I think you will agree that is different from your early assertion that no medical procedure should be performed until "after all alternatives have been explored, to ensure that the one with the greatest benefit, and least risk, is chosen."

[Malthus]

So you wouldn't permit any cosmetic or optional medical procedures?  I suspect that horse has already left the barn 

Looks like you haven't read my previous post where I deal with this exact issue ... 

No, I did.  I find your position hard to understand or at least inconsistent.

Seems simple enough to me - professional ethics requires that the physician undertaking the plan to intervene medically weighs potential benefits against risks. Where the benefits are (say) "potentially saving your life", greater risks are ethically acceptable; where the potential benefits are "I think this body modification would look cool", there is less tolerance for risk.

While ultimately any decision must be approved by a patient with full informed consent, this weighing exercise is contrary to a more libertarian approach of 'my body, my decision', in which the doctor merely rubber-stamps his or her patient's decision to (say) edit their genes as they please, for whatever reason they want.

What's the difficulty or inconsistency with that?

I don't disagree with that restatement.

But I think you will agree that is different from your early assertion that no medical procedure should be performed until "after all alternatives have been explored, to ensure that the one with the greatest benefit, and least risk, is chosen."

Its part of the same process of care. A physician is supposed to at least consider various alternatives to getting to the same place - a healthy patient - and suggest various alternatives with the most benefit versus harm ratio favoured. The problem of course is that, in this age of specialists, docs just like everyone else suffer from the "to a hammer, everything looks like a nail" problem.

[crazy canuck]

Not really.  There are a number of specialists who do mainly cosmetic surgery.  If your test of only performing procedures after all alternatives have been explored, to ensure that the one with the greatest benefit, and least risk, is chosen, then very few of those procedures would actually take place.  Very few people need artificial boobs etc. for their health.  The greatest benefit with the least risk in many of those cases is to do nothing since all surgery has risk and the only reward is superficial at best (personally I think a lot of people that get face work end up looking far worse).

[garbon]

Well this is thrilling,

[crazy canuck]

Well this is thrilling,

You are easily thrilled

[jimmy olsen]

Assuming the research/application progresses in a regulated, transparent environment, what really is the downside to genetic engineering?  Humans will become "too good"?  Genetic diseases being eliminated is a bad thing?

If, say, we could eliminate every future occurrence of down syndrome, how is that bad?  Sure it would be bad if we used that capability to argue that we should eliminate living people with DS as well...but no one (sane) is arguing for that.

In a vaccum it reduces genetic diversity, which leaves the population vulnerable to new diseases and other enviornmental changes. However, an advanced transhumanist society should have the capability to engineer the genome to deal with any such problems that come up.

[jimmy olsen]

And finally, we would probably agree that dwarfism is a genetic disorder.  But what about someone who has the genes to be really, really short?  Where do you draw the line?

Why shouldn't people be allowed to edit their own genes?

Same reason athletes shouldn't be allowed to dope.

Althetes are not allowed to dope because it generally causes them harm.  If a procedure has a beneficial effect with no harm then what is the issue?

Athletes would still be barred from using a performance enhancing drug that caused no harm. The aim of sports regulating bodies is to maintain a level and natural competitive playing field. (Does HGH cause any harm? I thought it was principally used to heal from injury faster).