Tbh, a reddit thread on cosmetic gene changes built my ethical view

Ngl, I assumed gene editing was only for stopping awful diseases. But then I found people arguing online about using it for stuff like eye color. Honestly, one side says curing sickness is always okay. The other side thinks choosing looks could mess up society. I solved my mix-up by reading how doctors draw lines between health and vanity. Now I feel rules need to focus on real medical needs. What's your opinion on where that line should be?

4 comments

4 Comments

shanef341mo ago

The 2018 case of He Jiankui editing twins' genes to resist HIV got me thinking. That was sold as health, but it blurred into enhancement since they weren't sick. So how do we stop 'prevention' from becoming a slippery slope to picking eye color? I mean, if we allow edits for potential future diseases, where's the cutoff? It's not like we have a handy list of approved worries from the worry factory. Seriously, though, who gets to decide what counts as a real medical need?

spencer4001mo ago

Man, your point hits close to home. My friend Emma works in a genetics lab, and she told me about a couple who wanted to screen embryos not just for deadly diseases, but for a gene linked to a higher chance of Alzheimer's later in life. It wasn't a sure thing, just a risk. She said the ethics board meeting about it went on for hours, everyone arguing over where to draw that exact line. It really showed me there's no easy answer, even for the experts.

kevin9741mo ago

Doubt gene editing for looks is that serious. People alter their appearance all the time without ethical panic, lmao.

-1

troy_price17d ago

It's like how every new tech starts with good reasons but ends up being about looks, lol.