The advancement in medical technology creates some impact due to its insistence on enhancement purposes of human genomes. Most people hold different opinions as to whether the adoption of medical enhancement is appropriate for humanity. In the event that leading figures such as Dr. Gregory Stock and Michael Sandel debated on the topic, multiple ideas would arise. In this case, Stock is one of the leading figures arguing for the full adoption of medical research and practice, while Sandel would argue against it. Over time, the growth in medical technology has led to the improvement of addressing numerous medicinal challenges. Some of these include the enhancement of physical and psychological condition of healthy human beings. In addition, human beings would be able to cure any existing conditions (Steinbock et al. 14). The debate would draw varied benefits anticipated by each side to humanity. This is because consequences of the initiative would affect humanity either positively or negatively.
Gregory, the leading proponent of the topic, would argue that the science of medical technology is the most vital aspect of the society. Initially, the advancement of medical technology has led to the discovery of medicinal treatment for most ailments. An example of the controversial issue is the adoption of stem cell treatment for most diseases like cancer and Parkinson disease. This medical development of stem cell, which consists of the embryonic and adult stem cell, helps in tackling deadly ailments. This approach which extracts cells that can regenerate and form new tissues can be used to replace worn out or treat ailing tissues. Based on these considerations, it implies that stem cell research is essential for the continuous process to control ailments and genetic disorders.
The moratoriums on cloning are one of the most critical medical researches that provide for the improvement of human lives. This medical research aims at formulating an experiment that will lead to the creation of human beings. This implies that for parent individuals, procreation would be possible without the need to adopt children. In this case, various features of human beings would be derived which would lead to appropriate and attractive society. Similarly, multiple genetic disorders, which are inheritable, could be eradicated. As a result, the technology would facilitate the change of humanity from the uncontrollable to controllable. In this case, poor genes with undesired features would be weeded out. Therefore, a society with admirable characteristics would emerge (Steinbock et al. 36).
The control of protective pharmaceutical is another critical element that has aroused debate over its regulation. In this regard, protective pharmaceutical refers to the medical technology that protects people from exposure to multiple risks attributable to ailments. Additionally, people would be able to counter their weaknesses or incapability through pharmaceutical approaches. This implies that any society would be able to counter ailments that could be detrimental to the society. In spite of high costs involved, this form of medical technology would contribute immensely to appropriate features and ailment-free society.
Anti-aging research is another research that has aroused controversy. This research aims at discovering means of eliminating the impact of aging amongst senior individuals. Based on the objective of the research, people would live normally until they die. Through the outcome of the research, old people would be able to contribute significantly to the economy. In addition, the level of dependence of the elderly on the younger population, due to health status, will decline drastically (Buonarroti 1). This will be beneficial for all the people and the society will be free from old-age impacts. Similarly, productive people would have the chance to contribute to the society without age disparities. Therefore, age would no longer be a limiting factor for hardworking people.
Medical technology innovations are critical to the improvement of individual features and characteristics. Due to research findings, people features could improve with respect to memory, muscles, height and sex. In this case, individuals would be able to boost their brain cells considerably leading to a society that is moral, and comprehend information appropriately (Steinbock et al. 31). Additionally, people would boost their muscle capabilities, enabling them to undertake varied physical tasks. For individuals who desire to be tall, medical enhancement provides hormones that stimulate growth. Therefore, based on individuals’ desires, physical and mental capabilities can be tailored to their preference. Additionally, parents could be able to determine the sex of their future children in advance. Through medical technology, varied forms of medical challenges with humanity would be tackled appropriately.
On the other hand, Sandel, one the most reputable opponent in this regard, considers that breakthroughs in medical technology exhibit significant predicaments in the society. With the selective nature of human beings, the society would be full of bright, tall and healthy people that have no uniqueness. The fact that parents would control genomes of their offspring, which influence their future characters, would contribute in this regard. In this case, there would be a decline in the freedom for offspring to an open future. In this regard, designer children would be tailored towards segments of life that would be contrary to their dimensions (Buonarroti 1).
The customized children, in attempts to achieve the desire of their parents, would be prone to other medical technology trends that would hamper equity. Based on other bioengineering procedures that seek to enhance body features of individuals, their autonomy would suffer considerably. In this regard, any weakness or features that would not conform to acceptable standards would be tackled from a medical perspective. This implies that individuals would be able to enhance their muscle tissues and brain cells. Furthermore, the occurrence of defective genes that influence various aspects of individuals’ lives would be replaced or repaired. Therefore, the adoption of the medical technology to deal with other aspects of autonomy other than preventive or curative dimensions is morally wrong. Those who can access the technology to enhance their physical and cognitive capacities can attribute the fact that it creates of inequality.
Since the act of enhancing genetic components of the human serve to create inequality, its practice is unacceptable by the majority. This practice undermines humanity by restricting the freedom to act independently, succeed on one’s own capacities, and evaluate one’s accountability (Buonarroti 1). Therefore, the appreciation of capabilities will decline due to secondary influences. Based on the transfer of individuals’ efforts to the medics, the general sense of survival would diminish. This is because people would be acting more of machines that humans. As a result, individuals with physical and cognitive enhancement would be less valuable due to the lack of the unique contribution to the society. Additionally, individuals’ growth and characters would be controlled based on preferences leading to uniformity and lack of taste.
Another aspect of bioengineering is the notion of sex selection. Initially, the technology, which involves prenatal analysis, was meant to detect genetic disorders that would affect children in their lives. After the technology was advanced, parents could be able to tell the sex of their fetus at an early stage before deciding on their fate. This implies that if parents did not desire the fetus, they could take an early precaution of terminating the pregnancy. Through this act, lives of innocent children will be tampered with prematurely. In this regard, the morality of the technology would be questionable and would lead to disparity in society’s gender.
Under the issue of terminating pregnancy based on the gender of the fetus, a debate on the morality of the act emanates. In this regard, individuals who believe that an embryo is a person who has a right to live condemn the act. Thus, the termination of the embryo to extract embryonic cells, which could be used to regenerate other tissues, is unacceptable. Similarly, the abortion of a fetus based on its sex it contrary to the right to life. As a result, the need for medical research to conduct other roles different from the intended curative or preventive nature is wrong.
Over time, technology has advanced to the point that sperm-sorting technique that assists in sex selection has been discovered. This implies that the adoption of the MicroSort process to differentiate the X and Y bearing sperms influence the nature of uncontrolled genders (Buonarroti 1). In this case, the act would lead to sex discrimination, especially towards girls. This implies that the society would have gender imbalance with male dominance leading to tension. On extreme ends, it would be unstable and violent. This would promote crime and war. Similarly, the accessibility of the technology would create a drift that would stimulate disparity among the poor and the rich.
Finally, the debate on the medical technology benefits and demerits creates an immense drift on the need to enhance humanity and promote equality. In this regard, arguments of the proponent or opponent result into questionable conclusions. However, the measurable application of breakthroughs in medicine is vital. This implies that researches should focus on improving preventive and curative aspects of the field. Although changes are inevitable, probably sometime in the future, other aspects of the medical technology would be incorporate by the generation to solve disparities within the society. As a result, an ailment-free society would be derived.