DISADVANTAGES:

Human dignity is upheld by Articles 2 and 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights;
furthermore, the UNESCO Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights (UDHGHR) implies that
the underlying similarity and intrinsic dignity of all members of the human family are derived from the
human genome. These statements are supported by the Council of Europe, which emphasized human
dignity in its recommendation on Heritable Human Genome Editing. Human dignity has been linked to
the human genome in at least two ways: the respect for the intrinsic worth of an individual human being
in relation to their genome, and the significance of the human genome for the integrity of the human
species. (Hammerstein et al., 2019)

A research assessing attitudes has brought attention to worries about parents being under more
and more social pressure. It can be interpreted that failing to get tested equates to not being a
responsible parent and relinquishing control over the health of a future child. In light of this,
Hammerstein et al. contend that the prospective parent would therefore have a moral obligation to act
independently rather than a right. That being said, there has been a plea for a right to be ignorant due
to the possibility that the weight of information (for both patients and future parents) may be too much.
This claim is supported by the argument that, in the absence of any means of treatment or risk
reduction, genetic testing may reveal to a patient information about their heightened susceptibility to
serious diseases (Biller-Andorno et al., 2019). Furthermore, proponents of the "right not to know"
contend that being aware of these hazards could be excessively onerous and result in excruciating
psychological suffering. Accordingly, it is asserted that the burden of information and decision-making
may also accompany the understanding of an embryo's genetic characteristics.

Together, this shows that making decisions in reproductive medicine can be extremely difficult
since it involves considering feelings of uncertainty and emotion that are inherent to the process of
starting a family. Future parents' autonomy must be protected since it would be devastating if this idea
were to become an obligation to manage one's own life or the life of one's future child.
 BIOETHICS:

Technologies for modifying the human genome have a lot of potential benefits. However, some
ethical, legal, and social issues surrounding the use of such technologies are important to any discussion
about their application. As a result, a range of specialists in politics, science, bioethics, and public
opinion have expressed caution about the proper application of heritable human genome editing and its
potential impact on future generations.

The UNESCO International Bioethics Committee (IBC) book is the most comprehensive to date.
The paper titled "Reflections on Human Genome and Human Rights" lists five primary ethical precepts
and social challenges: (a) respect for privacy and autonomy; (b) justice and solidarity; (c) comprehension
of health and illness; (d) the cultural, social, and economic context of science; and (e) future
generations' rights (Frixione et al., 2021). Select areas of recently developed genomic medicine
applications are covered, including direct-to-consumer testing, personalized, and precision medicine.
The parties involved are assigned responsibility, including countries, researchers, academics, physicians,
regulators, for-profit businesses, and the media. Distributive justice and international solidarity are also
addressed.

Ethics describes how society "ought to be" or "should be," and it is based on norms and ideals.
Occasionally, it's unclear how much good or harm is being done. Genetic therapeutic treatments are by
definition "uncertain" and so inherently unknowable because they take place in a universe in which
complete certainty can never be attained. On the other hand, risk can be calculated, measured, and
managed. It may be properly determined using probabilistic outcomes. However, in order to effectively
manage risk, we must comprehend the probabilities at play, including the possibility that extremely
unusual and unfavorable occurrences will transpire. Therefore, our readiness to take on risk will rely on
our comprehension of the potential consequences and our ability to effectively manage the risk that
genome editing poses. Essentially, it is a careful balancing act between the prospective rewards and the
probability dangers (Townsend, 2020).

We should not let caution be an excuse for failing to recognize the risks and take appropriate
action to mitigate them. We can only be expected to make wise decisions at that point. Determining not
what is safe but rather what is "safe enough" in the context of genome editing may be necessary given
the balance of risks and benefits. A stricter regulatory framework would be needed for technologies
where there is a greater potential for harm.
 ADVANTAGES:

The ability to modify the genomes of various living things has been made possible by the
advancement of editing technology. These methods have an impact on various fields, including
environmental sciences, agriculture, fundamental biomedical research, and disease management. They
might also be applied to human customization for extra-therapeutic augmentation. The improvement of
gene and cellular therapies is one of the advantages of editing intended for medical purposes.
Advancement in these sectors would help at least nine areas: 1) Oncology; 2) Infectiology; 3)
Hematology; 4) Hepatology; 5) Neurology; 6) Dermatology; 7) Ophthalmology; 8) Pneumology; and 9)
Organ Transplantation (Furtado, 2019).

When it comes to reproduction, genetic information—which can be obtained through a variety

of technologies—imposes new obligations on how and when to behave. A specific outcome is sought by
prospective parents who want to use this knowledge to ensure or prevent certain genetic variants in
their offspring. They want a specific kind of child, meaning that it should be genetically connected to
them and should not have any certain characteristic, disease, or trait. One option for parents to pursue
such objectives is through assisted reproductive technologies, such as pre-implantation genetic
diagnosis; however, these methods depend on an adequate quantity of embryos. Given that many
people strongly desire genetically related offspring, if this is not possible, HGE (Human Genome Editing)
may be more acceptable than alternative ways to become parents, such as donated gametes. Because
so many genes are involved, there is a chance that complicated diseases that are frequent in
populations and challenging to avoid through selecting means can be avoided by employing HGE. When
HGE becomes widely accessible in the future, the paper envisions a plethora of potential uses (Gyngell
et al., 2019). These can include enhanced defenses against illness and injury, endurance to harsh
environments, superabilities, or other diverse traits like the capacity to produce vitamins on one's own
instead of requiring consumption.

Acknowledging the benefits of Heritable Human Genome editing is somehow significant given
that concerns over the use of gene editing to produce live births are legitimate. Such applications for
reproduction can be prohibited. However, therapeutic research could make use of the technology to
comprehend sickness and create novel remedies. And this needs to be considered in whatever
limitations we impose on it. Safety concerns can be used to support legislation prohibiting reproductive
gene editing, but not to support legislation prohibiting therapeutic gene editing. Ignoring the benefits it
can provide for a large number of people—including the most vulnerable—would be the equivalent of
outlawing it.