Genome: non plus ultra?
This is what Lori B. American lawyer Andrews. This woman has been approached by many people asking for advice, including former President Bill Clinton. Andrews has spent years studying the influence of genome research from a legal point of view. In his opinion, relevant legislation should be drafted for the purposes of genetic resources. In this way, the human being will be willing to face the ethical problems that are about to arise, before they become too serious.
From this idea, Andrews brought together what is happening and what could happen and offered a surprising talk in Donostia. His deep reflection should serve to begin to reflect. The cases described in this article come from the United States, where Andrews received it. Its value lies in that, let’s now analyze the behavior of the ‘most advanced society’ and see how it should be ours.
Genetic shop
A genetic store has been opened in a California shopping area. As in other places there are clothes, books or food for sale, there you can acquire genes. That is, everyone can buy genes, both human and animal, to cure certain diseases or have some physical characteristics.
The store is not real, but the idea of Tran Kim-Trang and Karl Mihail. But it is a metaphor for what can happen in future clinics. The most surprising request that the artists received was that of the genes that give the cucarachos the ability to survive.
However, the genes we can acquire generate fewer problems than we already have. In Genome there are indications of some diseases that we can develop in a few years. In other words, the future may be written in the cells… and that phrase is not a metaphor.
Genetic testing has been invented to read this dangerous information. A drop of blood is enough to tell if a person has a genetic condition, alcoholism, or depression. The tendency to dangerous behavior would also be reflected in the results of an adequate test.
It can be taken as a criterion and make important decisions, that is, where to live, how to look for work, whether they are children or not, and many more. This is what makes the analysis dangerous. Already in a medical article, people with a tendency to develop skin cancer are advised to live in rainy areas. Should we accept such advice? Where to set limits?
Looking ahead
“Do you think you’re fast or pretty? Get out your genome.” This is an advertisement that is found in the home mailbox within twenty years. “Do you want to know what your genetic trend diet is?” Anyone can go to the point of sale and perform a genetic analysis in a cabin for about 5 minutes.
One of Andrews' questions concerns the limitation of state power. Is it possible for pregnant women to be forced to test the fetus? Faced with a hypothetical genetic disease, the adoption of measures would mean an important economic saving for the State. Better not to ask what those measures would be. The State may force the child to undergo gene therapy when the detected disease is not very serious.
But the problem doesn't end there. One may not repair the child’s ‘genetic errors’. However, the development of this disease could lead parents to trial for not taking prenatal measures. In fact, similar cases have already occurred in the United States. In Michigan, a child denounced his mother because she gave him tetracycline as a child
New criteria
All this can lead to a new genetic criterion to be a good parent. In this way, and to avoid quality problems, alternative ways to be children will be launched. The eggs of a woman can be fertilized in a clinic with the hope of a man, performing a genetic test to the embryos and selecting among them the one to be applied to the woman to become pregnant. But this election will expose ethical and legal problems.
The new criterion of the right parent can save judges a lot of work. In case of divorce, genetic testing could be used to decide the child's custody. The care of the child would be given to the parent less predisposed to genetic diseases.
However, what is mentioned about the child's custody assignment judgments is for now a mere speculation. In the case of insurance and contracts, genetic discrimination is already real. Insurers and employment companies already want to use genetic testing.
In fact, more than one insurer has wanted to remove insurance in case signs of disease have been detected in the genetic test of the healthy person. The disease is not developed and no one knows if it will develop, but insurers do not want to take risks. This type of behavior has led to a new classification of diseases: Pre-development diseases.
People are afraid to perform a genetic test and detect a disease with an effective treatment, as it is an analysis that can offer information contrary to self. In the United States, a man with haemakromatosis was taking treatment, but he was denied insurance on the excuse that he could stop treatment. Fear of testing is reasonable, as the insurance industry is not the only one to take advantage of.
The world of work can also depend on genetics in the future. For example, employee accountability criteria, rather than talent or skill, may be genetic. One day we may be asked to send the results of the genetic test along with the curriculum.
The U.S. government denied work to a carrier of Gaucher's disease. The disease was not developed, there were no symptoms, but the government thought there was a risk of development. A man was not given work for fraud in medical recognition. This person said there was no disease but, according to genetic tests, he had a genetic tendency to kidney disease. In this case there were no symptoms of disease.
Gene therapy
Although genome research is intrinsically useful, being able to modify this information makes it much more attractive. Genetic diseases can be cured by replacing damaged genes with ‘healthy’ genes. This method allows us to use genes designed by ourselves to achieve many effects. Gene therapy aims to change genes. At the moment it is immersed in basic experiments, but at some point a real effectiveness will be achieved.
From an ethical point of view, gene therapy can have a very dangerous use. Today, just as children born with assisted reproduction seek their biological parents of origin, those who receive gene therapy can also seek donor.
A Californian sperm bank offers the Nobel Prize semen and in another case, in Michigan, a client wanted to get the mix between Brigitte Bardot and Elebor Roosevelt. Andrews believes that ‘doing’ can become a process similar to buying cars. “How will parents feel if the child’s first words are not “E = mc 2”?” says the lawyer.
Is it lawful for people or governments to sell or buy genes? In a clinic, wealthy people can have smarter, more beautiful, and more physical children. People may acquire the ability to perform photosynthesis.
Protection against genetic testing
Governments may decide to sterilize anyone with a genetic disease. In addition, the health test that should be performed could detect other diseases such as the case in which two parents should be genetic carriers of a disease for a child to suffer a disease. And then marriage between the two carriers would be prohibited. Consequently, this situation would generate fear for people and genetic carriers would have great problems finding a partner.
The predisposition to certain diseases in some races is higher, so genetic testing can be to promote racism. That is why Andrews makes this reflection. Genetic testing should be avoided to avoid excessive ethical problems. In fact, it is a factor that can change relationships between people and can cause serious psychological consequences. In the opinion of the lawyer, this problem would also be noticed in sexual relations.
B. Lori The ideas Andrews has launched are considered courageous. He has presented numerous real cases already occurred and speculative reflection is abundant. However, reflecting on what can be is not at all a nonsense. Perhaps we are in time to make decisions, and from that point of view it will not be useless work.
Zu idazle
Zientzia aldizkaria
