Aidan Syto

UNST 404D
Dr. Motschiedler
April 11, 2018

Bioethics Section 1
Introduction
2. With current research and advancements in genetics, the once-sci-fi fantasy of genetic editing
and splicing might soon become a possibility. CRISPR (or Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short
Palindromic Repeats) is a sort of bacteriological immune system against viruses. In short, these
spacer sequences are can be modified to activate gene expression and modify “errors” or “typos”
in genomes of living organisms. Researchers have found they can intentionally alter the genes in
living cells and possibly in the future correct mutations at certain places in the human genome.
This has the implications to treat disease at the genetic level and even prevent congenital
conditions raising the bioethical considerations whether humanity should be able to decide to
“cheat” fate. Thanks to genetic research previously, hereditary conditions are made detectable
even as far in advance as during pregnancy of a child, but until CRISPR there hasn’t been a
possibility of amending genetic disorders. The answers to these ethical dilemmas requires
“genuine interdisciplinary thinking and working” because the controversy of CRISPR involves
not only biological and medical consideration but also the perspectives of philosophy and
theology to more completely inform decisions.

Chapter 2
4. Technology in my life has enhanced many aspects of my personal and professional life
including family, academics, and leisure. It has many benefits also that I often don’t notice
actively because they have become so every day as a part of modern society such as safe access
to healthcare, nutrition, and electricity. Many of these benefits are much more noticeable when
they are absent from our daily lives. Technological power connects me to my relatives in Japan
who I can call or message conveniently. Although it could never replace actually being there
with them, it does provide a valuable means to communicate. I also value how much education is
powered by technology and the open access to information. This same access can at times also
hinder learning when information becomes too inundating but compared to the pre-internet era,
many people can get up to high school and even many college level courses for free or nominal
cost. The complications are unfortunately almost as plentiful when it comes to the impact of
technology on my life. I find often being addicted to cell phones and social media greatly
reduces my productivity.

Chapter 3
1. Primarily I find that I employ deontological ethics in my decision making because I am more
concerned with the conditions of a situation to help inform how to make conclusions. I have
moral duties to values such as personal integrity and respect for others which can often make
difficult decisions easy to make from the beginning. I do recognize how this approach has many
gaps and isn’t fully sufficient enough for situations where multiple ethical values are in conflict.
Even if the consequence is good or to my benefit, it the means by which to reach it was not in
harmony with my values and moral duties I could not justify those actions. I have learned to take
this approach the hard way as I have seen how vulnerable I am without personal moral values to
make decisions with. I don’t agree with the view that the “ends justify the means”.

Chapter 4
3. I believe people has the right to refuse treatment as much as they have the right to quality
healthcare. If refusal to treatment results in harm or possibly death, as long as the person is
informed of the risk they still reserve the right to make the choice to accept or deny care.
Professionals do not and must not have the power to decide if a person lives and so in a similar
way they cannot forcibly prevent a person from dying if that informed person explicitly refuses
treatment. Consequently, the professional shouldn’t feel morally burdened by those
responsibilities if a patient wishes to refuse treatment. Just as professionals cannot help if a
patient dies although they tried everything in their power to sustain them, in those situations
similarly you do not have to take the burden of their death because you earnestly tried everything
within your ability. In a similar way, refusal of treatment is not an inaction or negligence on your
part. It is a choice by the patient and so you must respect their autonomy.