81–90 of 292 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Where it comes from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_Oath
But in that sense it's not literal at all. Again, chemotherapy.
> It is often said that the phrase "First do no harm" (Latin: Primum non nocere) is a part of the Hippocratic oath. The phrase as such does not appear in the oath...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most agree that it is unethical to purposely have a disabled/diseased child if it possible to not have a nondisabled one. In that case, I think it is quite ethical for this technology to be used on those with debilitating genetic defects. We’re in no rush to allow any genome editing other than that.
Hmm. Including myself, anyone with an IQ less than 2.5 sigmas above average, or with strong enough emotions to make bad decisions that contradict correct analyses, or with not enough ambition to want to attempt anything useful with their high IQ in the first place ... is thusly "debilitated" and should have been allowed genetic engineering.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But in that sense it's not literal at all. Again, chemotherapy.
Sure, but read the link. > It is often said that the phrase "First do no harm" (Latin: Primum non nocere) is a part of the Hippocratic oath. The phrase as such does not appear in the oath...
We would need a very particular set of conditions for embryonic editing to be justifiable under a medical dogma that aims to "do no harm." Both parents would need to carry a large common set of recessive deleterious alleles, as this would make embryonic selection of non-carriers very difficult. Then we would need the editing system to be so reliable as to not introduce off-target mutations. In a preimplantation setti…
I'm not certain where the premise that our medicine must "Do no harm" comes from. Chemotherapy, for example, is known for being extremely toxic and harmful, yet the justification is that it often yields better outcomes than no treatment. Why can we not use the same justification for editing DNA? Honestly some therapies cause mutations by design, as some cancers are less capable of DNA repair. I do see one argument, h…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not certain where the premise that our medicine must "Do no harm" comes from. Chemotherapy, for example, is known for being extremely toxic and harmful, yet the justification is that it often yields better outcomes than no treatment. Why can we not use the same justification for editing DNA? Honestly some therapies cause mutations by design, as some cancers are less capable of DNA repair. I do see one argument, h…
Where it comes from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_Oath
We would need a very particular set of conditions for embryonic editing to be justifiable under a medical dogma that aims to "do no harm." Both parents would need to carry a large common set of recessive deleterious alleles, as this would make embryonic selection of non-carriers very difficult. Then we would need the editing system to be so reliable as to not introduce off-target mutations. In a preimplantation setti…
I'm not certain where the premise that our medicine must "Do no harm" comes from. Chemotherapy, for example, is known for being extremely toxic and harmful, yet the justification is that it often yields better outcomes than no treatment. Why can we not use the same justification for editing DNA? Honestly some therapies cause mutations by design, as some cancers are less capable of DNA repair. I do see one argument, h…
It comes from the hippocratic oath. "I will apply dietetic measures for the benefit of the sick according to my ability and judgment; I will keep them from harm and injustice."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can’t imagine anybody in their right mind would create a genome that had a DRM. Furthermore, would you sign up for a procedure like that? Also it’s a violation of somebody’s human rights to stop them from reproducing! What is really happening is that normal copies of the human genome are being incorporated. Which are then passed on to your sperm/ovum.
It's already done for some genetically-modified crops. I don't know about the state of practice for animals.
Many of these have low demonstrated correlation or significance so don't just blindly load everything on that document into your at-home CRISPR kit http://www.the-odin.com/gene-engineering-kits/ but it should be a good starting point for thinking about what can be modified, improved, disimproved, etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Where it comes from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_Oath
It’s a myth that doctors even take this oath. There might be some modern version taken, but it is a symbolic pledge, not a legal requirement. Laws and committees cover issues of ethics these days.
Not really:
"In a 2000 survey of US medical schools, all of the then extant medical schools administered some type of profession oath. Among schools of modern medicine, sixty-two of 122 used the Hippocratic Oath, or a modified version of it."