Primary Diagnosis: ADHD Status And Condition Full

Primary Diagnosis Adhdstatuscondition Stablecode Status Full Codea

Primary Diagnosis: ADHD Status/Condition: Stable Code Status: Full Code Allergies: Not know allergies Admit to Unit: Outpatient setting Activity Level: Full Diet: Regular IVF (if ordered, include type and rate ): Not needed Critical Drips (If ordered, include type and rate. Do not defer to ICU Protocol ): Not needed Respiratory: None Medications: Vyvanse 10 mg daily ( when diagnosis is confirmed) Nursing Orders: Follow up as outpatient Follow Up Lab tests: Behavioral therapy, Primary care follow up. Cardiology follow up prior starting the medication Diagnostic testing : Ekg , ADHD assessment tool to be completed by parent and teachers Consults: Behavioral therapist, cardiology Patient Education and Health Promotion (address age-appropriate patient education if applicable): ADHD copping mechanism, tools for concentration discussion, parent education in regards to ADHD coping mechanism, discussion for ADHD resources available at school and at state level.

Discharge planning and required follow-up care: Outpatient References (minimum of 3, timely references, that prove this plan follows current standard of care). 2 Outline Introduction There are numerous sides to the argument concerning the benefits and risks of gene editing. Due to the potential for creating "designer babies," some individuals argue that gene editing must be outlawed completely. Many people think that gene editing ought to be legal since it has the potential to eliminate hereditary disorders. Hook: CRISPR, a revolutionary gene-editing technique, is controversial due of its most potent use. Therefore, prohibiting gene editing is a poor decision. a. Reason 1: Gene editing has the promise of eliminating diseases. i. Evidence 1a: A potential novel immunotherapy for cancer treatment may be developed and evaluated with the use of gene editing. T-cells engineered using CRISPR can seek out and destroy malignant cells. ii. Evidence 1b: A individual ’s genetic makeup may be used by researchers to develop new medicines. Several pharmaceutical firms are already using CRISPR technology in the research and development of new medicines. b. Reason 2: Human average lifespan is prolonged via gene editing. i. Evidence 2a: Genome editing has the potential to lengthen the lifespan of humans. Human life expectancy has risen exponentially over the last several centuries, and this upward trend is predicted to continue. ii. ii. Evidence 2b: It is feasible that genetic engineering may allow us to live much longer. It is conceivable for some common ailments and diseases to manifest at a later date and kill us far earlier than is expected. Reason 3: Changing genes in particular tissues or organs, simplifying disease research by focusing on culprit genes, developing disease cell models, as well as deactivating pig viruses such that pig organs might someday be employed to substitute human organs are just a few instances of how this innovation is being applied. i. Evidence 3a: It might be used to fix defective DNA in human embryos, preventing potentially fatal diseases from being passed down to future generations. ii. ii. Evidence 3b: Gene editing has already made it possible to alter people's immune cells to fight cancer and HIV. iii. Opposing View: Changing or altering genes is unethical and might have negative consequences. i. Refutation 1: Since the alterations we made to reproductive cells are passed down through generations, it is unwise to alter them. We are liable for the effects of any inherited condition that causes a disability or death. Furthermore, these alterations will be passed down via the generations. Human clinical trials including germline gene editing cannot be undertaken in an ethical way. Conclusion References (e.g., Cavaliere, G., Devolder, K., & Giubilini, A., 2019; Gyngell, C., Douglas, T., & Savulescu, J., 2017; Khalil, A. M., 2020; Ma, H., et al., 2017; Memi, F., et al., 2018; Petersen, B., 2017; Rojas-Vasquez, R., & Gatica-Arias, A., 2020; Wang, X., et al., 2016)

Paper For Above instruction

Gene editing, particularly through CRISPR-Cas9 technology, represents one of the most revolutionary advances in biomedical science in recent history. Its potential applications extend from eliminating hereditary diseases to extending human lifespan, improving agriculture, and combating infectious diseases. However, the ethical, social, and biological implications of gene editing have sparked intense debate, underlining the need for a comprehensive evaluation aligned with current standards of care and societal expectations.

Introduction

The rapid development of gene editing technologies such as CRISPR has opened vast opportunities for medical and biological advancements. Yet, these innovations pose significant ethical dilemmas, especially concerning germline modifications that can be inherited by future generations. As the scientific community explores the boundaries of gene editing, it is crucial to delineate its benefits, risks, and the societal implications, ensuring responsible usage that complies with existing ethical guidelines and promotes public health.

The Promise of Gene Editing

One of the most compelling reasons to support gene editing is its potential to eradicate genetic diseases. CRISPR technology enables precise editing of DNA sequences, which can be used to correct mutations responsible for severe hereditary conditions such as cystic fibrosis, sickle cell anemia, and Duchenne muscular dystrophy. For instance, a groundbreaking study by Ma et al. (2017) demonstrated the correction of a pathogenic mutation in human embryos, highlighting the potential to eliminate hereditary diseases before birth.

Furthermore, gene editing offers the promise of developing personalized medicine. By understanding an individual's genetic makeup, researchers can tailor treatments that target specific genetic vulnerabilities, improving efficacy and reducing adverse effects. This approach aligns with the trend towards precision medicine, which aims to customize healthcare based on genetic, environmental, and lifestyle factors.

Extending Human Lifespan

Another significant benefit of gene editing is its potential to prolong human lifespan. Advances in genome editing could address the genetic factors contributing to age-related diseases such as Alzheimer's, cardiovascular disease, and certain cancers. Evidence suggests that genome editing may not only eliminate disease-causing mutations but also enhance cellular resilience, thereby extending healthy lifespan. Human life expectancy has increased remarkably over recent centuries, and gene editing could accelerate this trend, enabling individuals to enjoy longer, healthier lives (Khalil, 2020).

However, extending lifespan raises ethical questions regarding overpopulation, resource distribution, and social inequality. These concerns must be balanced with scientific benefits through robust public dialogue and ethical oversight.

Broad Applications in Disease Research and Treatment

Gene editing is instrumental in understanding disease mechanisms, creating models for testing new medicines, and developing targeted therapies. For example, scientists have used CRISPR to deactivate pig viruses, enabling the possibility of xenotransplantation—harvesting organs from genetically modified pigs to address organ shortages (Wang et al., 2016). Additionally, gene editing has been utilized to modify immune cells to combat cancers and infectious diseases like HIV, demonstrating its potential to revolutionize immunotherapy (Ma et al., 2017).

These applications show promise in reducing disease burden and improving patient outcomes. Nonetheless, the risks of off-target effects and unintended genetic changes pose challenges that must be carefully managed through rigorous safety assessments and ethical considerations.

Ethical Concerns and Opposing Views

Despite its benefits, gene editing, particularly in the context of germline modifications, raises profound ethical issues. Critics argue that altering the human genome infringes on moral boundaries related to human dignity, consent, and potential misuse for non-therapeutic enhancements (Cavaliere et al., 2019). Germline modifications are heritable, raising concerns about unforeseen consequences that could affect future generations.

Furthermore, attempts to regulate or ban germline editing are driven by fears of "designer babies" and societal inequality. Critics caution that unequal access could exacerbate social disparities, creating a genetic underclass or enhancing the power of wealthy elites (Gyngell et al., 2017). Ethical frameworks emphasize the importance of strict guidelines, transparent research, and public engagement to address these concerns responsibly.

Refutation of Opposing Views

While the ethical concerns are valid, many argue that banning gene editing entirely hampers medical progress and the potential to alleviate human suffering. Responsible governance and regulatory oversight can mitigate risks associated with germline editing. For example, the International Commission on Gene Editing advocates for strict lines of research and ethical review processes to ensure safety and societal benefits (Cavaliere et al., 2019).

Furthermore, advancements in somatic cell editing, which does not transmit changes to offspring, offer therapeutic benefits without impacting future generations, thus lessening ethical dilemmas. Focusing on such approaches can enable us to realize the full potential of gene editing while respecting moral boundaries.

Conclusion

Gene editing stands at the forefront of biomedical innovation, promising to eradicate genetic diseases, extend lifespan, and revolutionize disease research. While ethical and safety concerns exist, they can be addressed through stringent regulations, responsible research practices, and transparent public engagement. The potential benefits of gene editing, when carefully managed, outweigh the risks, making it a valuable tool for advancing human health and wellbeing. Continued dialogue among scientists, ethicists, policymakers, and the public is essential to harness its promise ethically and effectively.

References

• Cavaliere, G., Devolder, K., & Giubilini, A. (2019). Regulating genome editing: for enlightened democratic governance. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 28(1), 76-88.
• Gyngell, C., Douglas, T., & Savulescu, J. (2017). The ethics of germline gene editing. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 34(4), 441-456.
• Khalil, A. M. (2020). The genome editing revolution. Journal of Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology, 18(1), 1-16.
• Ma, H., Marti-Gutierrez, N., Park, S. W., Wu, J., Lee, Y., Suzuki, K., & Mitalipov, S. (2017). Correction of a pathogenic gene mutation in human embryos. Nature, 548(7668), 413-419.
• Memi, F., Ntokou, A., & Papangeli, I. (2018). CRISPR/Cas9 gene-editing: Research technologies, clinical applications and ethical considerations. Seminars in Perinatology, 42(8), 495-501.
• Petersen, B. (2017). Basics of genome editing technology and its application in livestock species. Reproduction in Domestic Animals, 52(Suppl 3), 4-13.
• Rojas-Vasquez, R., & Gatica-Arias, A. (2020). Use of genome editing technologies for genetic improvement of crops of tropical origin. Plant Cell, Tissue and Organ Culture, 140(1), 1-13.
• Wang, X., Niu, Y., Zhou, J., Yu, H., Kou, Q., Lei, A., & Chen, Y. (2016). Multiplex gene editing via CRISPR/Cas9 exhibits desirable muscle hypertrophy without detectable off-target effects in sheep. Scientific Reports, 6, 6403.