Gene therapy is just another example of the advancement of modern medicine. It's when a medical professional can actually go into the uterus and take out the gene of the unborn child that could cause a life-threatening disease such as tay-sachs. Well, recently, gene therapy was used to correct a non-fatal disease called spinabifida (excuse the spelling) and this brings up a controversy.
Where do we draw the line where gene therapy is used acceptably and unacceptably? The issue with gene therapy is ultimately, we could make a superhuman by adding this gene and subtracting that one. We could choose to have blonde hair and blues eyes and be this tall and so forth.
Gene therapy is a discovery that saves many lives, but should we use it to improve lives also such as the example above? And if we do, how do we classify what's "improvement" and what's "desire." I personally think that gene therapy should be used in any case where a child is deemed to have a medical abnormality severe enough that the benefits of the gene therapy outweigh the costs of complications and the risks of the procedure.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
