Evaluating Ethics And Ethical Committees Is On The Rise

Evaluating Ethics And Ethical Committees Is On The Rise In The Health

Evaluating ethics and ethical committees is on the rise in the health care industry, and there is a new job title emerging: ethicist. This role focuses on consulting leadership teams on policies and education to best approach future ethical issues. Discuss the following questions with the class: What is a current biomedical ethics issue in health care that concerns you? Explain your answer. Do you feel the biomedical ethics issue is being handled appropriately? Explain your answer.

Paper For Above instruction

Introduction

The advancement of biomedical technologies and the complexities of modern healthcare have brought numerous ethical challenges to the forefront. Among these, the issue of genome editing, specifically CRISPR-Cas9 technology, exemplifies a significant biomedical ethics concern that sparks intense debate among healthcare professionals, ethicists, policymakers, and the public. This paper explores the ethical dilemmas surrounding gene editing, evaluates whether the current handling of this issue is appropriate, and offers insights into the role of ethics committees and ethicists in guiding responsible decision-making in healthcare.

Current Biomedical Ethics Issue: Genome Editing and CRISPR

Genome editing, particularly using CRISPR-Cas9 technology, has revolutionized the potential for curing genetic diseases, enhancing human traits, and preventing hereditary conditions. However, it raises profound ethical questions about safety, consent, equity, and the potential for misuse. One major concern is the idea of germline editing, which involves altering genes in embryos, leading to heritable changes. Critics argue that this opens doors to "designer babies," where traits could be selected based on aesthetic or social preferences rather than medical necessity (Lander et al., 2019). Such modifications could exacerbate social inequalities and create a divide between genetically enhanced individuals and those without access to such technologies.

Another ethical dilemma concerns safety and unintended consequences. Despite scientific advances, off-target effects and unforeseen genetic consequences remain a significant concern. The possibility of inducing new health problems or unintended mutations raises questions about the responsible application of this technology. Furthermore, informed consent becomes problematic when germline modifications affect future generations who cannot consent to the changes made (Lanphier et al., 2015).

Finally, the equitable distribution of benefits from gene editing is an issue. Wealthier countries or individuals could access and afford genetic enhancements, potentially widening existing health disparities globally (Cho et al., 2019). Such disparities threaten the principle of justice, which underpins medical ethics.

Handling of the Biomedical Ethics Issue

Currently, the handling of genome editing and CRISPR technology involves a cautious and, at times, restrictive approach. Many countries have imposed moratoriums or strict regulations on germline editing, emphasizing the need for extensive safety assessments and ethical deliberation before clinical applications proceed (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2017). International bodies such as the World Health Organization (WHO) have called for global governance frameworks to regulate human genome editing (WHO, 2021).

While these measures reflect an acknowledgment of ethical concerns, critics argue that they may hinder scientific progress and timely clinical translation. There is also a lack of universal consensus, which complicates global governance. Ethical committees and governmental agencies tend to approach these issues with caution, emphasizing informed consent, safety, and fairness, but some argue that the regulations are not yet sufficiently comprehensive or enforceable to prevent unethical use (Doudna & Charpentier, 2014).

The role of bioethicists and ethics committees has become increasingly vital in this context. They provide oversight, advise policymakers, and facilitate public dialogue about acceptable limits and societal implications of gene editing. This cautious approach aligns with the precautionary principle, suggesting that responsible handling requires balancing innovation with ethical considerations.

Evaluation of Current Handling

Overall, the current handling of genome editing presents a mixed picture. On the one hand, there is significant progress in establishing legal frameworks, international guidelines, and ethical oversight to prevent misuse and address safety concerns. On the other hand, rapid technological advances challenge existing regulations and ethical paradigms, often leading to a lag between scientific capability and ethical governance.

The involvement of ethical committees and ethicists has been crucial in ensuring that biomedical advancements proceed responsibly. These bodies help clarify ethical boundaries, promote transparency, and incorporate diverse societal values. For example, the National Academies report recommends strict regulatory oversight and emphasizes the importance of public engagement, ensuring that the societal implications are adequately considered (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2017).

However, ethical handling is still not perfect. The potential for "off-label" use or unauthorized germline modifications underscores the need for stronger international cooperation and enforcement of standards. Furthermore, public engagement remains limited in some regions, risking a disconnect between scientific developments and societal values. Ethical oversight must evolve alongside technological innovation to address emerging concerns comprehensively.

Conclusion

Genome editing via CRISPR stands as a key biomedical ethics issue that encapsulates the broader challenges faced in modern healthcare: balancing innovation with responsibility, safety with progress, and individual rights with societal interests. While current measures demonstrate significant efforts to ethically regulate and oversee these technologies, ongoing vigilance and international collaboration are necessary to ensure responsible use. The emerging role of ethicists and ethics committees will continue to be pivotal in navigating the complex moral landscape of biomedical advancements, ultimately safeguarding human dignity and justice in the age of genomic medicine.

References

Cho, M. K., Jang, S. J., & Kang, J. J. (2019). Ethical implications of genome editing technologies. Bioethics, 33(3), 240–248.

Doudna, J. A., & Charpentier, E. (2014). The new frontier of genome engineering with CRISPR-Cas9. Science, 346(6213), 1258096.

Lander, E. S., et al. (2019). Adopt a moratorium on heritable genome editing. Nature, 567(7747), 165–168.

Lanphier, E., et al. (2015). Don’t edit the human germ line. Nature, 519(7544), 410–411.

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2017). Human Genome Editing: Science, Ethics, and Governance. The National Academies Press.

Lander, E. S., et al. (2019). Adopt a moratorium on heritable genome editing. Nature, 567(7747), 165–168.

WHO. (2021). Human genome editing: Regulation and governance. World Health Organization.

Please note: References are illustrative; actual sources should be consulted for precise citations.