"In the distant past, man has looked to the stars for his destiny; in the future, he will look at his genes." Genetic technology holds great promise for the future, but with it, it raises complex moral and ethical issues that demand our immediate attention. One of the most recent advances in genetic technology is genetic testing, or our ability to look at our own genes and assess our risk of contracting a whole array of diseases, such as cancer and Alzheimer’s. Genetic testing should definitely be employed, because it allows us to practise preventive medicine, but with the strictest of controls on privacy, as not doing so might constitute a violation of privacy and raise the spectre of discrimination.
If genetic testing is made available, there is a danger that that information might leak out, and constitute a violation of privacy of the person concerned. Privacy rights have been extensively enforced in the public sector, but with the emergence of private companies offering genetic testing, protections against privacy infringements might become woefully inadequate. For example, the Fourth Amendment right in the U.S Constitution and the right to informational privacy as established in the Supreme Court ruling of Whalen v. Roe do not apply to the private sector. The U.S National Research Council also warned that the medical records of millions of people were open to exploitation. Privacy is a fundamental right, and since genetic testing reveals some of the most intimate secrets about our future health, this right should never be compromised.
Together with a violation of their privacy, people might also face discrimination in the marketplace if genetic testing is made available. Insurance providers and employers have to shoulder the costs that occur because of the treatments that their policyholders and employees, respectively, receive. It is thus in their best interests to hire people who have a very low risk of contracting diseases which might be expensive to treat. Because of this, people who are in the high risk group face certain discrimination when applying for jobs and insurance cover. The possibility of genetic discrimination happening is so great that the American legislature passed the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act in 2005, which forbids employers from factoring genetic information into their hiring decisions. An Australian study, called the Genetic Discrimination Project found that approximately 10% of the 1000 people it tracked experienced some form of discrimination, with 14 people being denied insurance cover. The Australian study and the American legislation show that discrimination on the basis of genetics is a very real possibility.
However, we cannot dismiss genetic testing straightaway because it can lead to individualized patient care and preventive medicine. Genetic testing is only an assessment of risk based on genetics, and there are a variety of other factors such as the environment and our lifestyle that affect our chances of contracting an illness. The meaning of this is that if we know what kind of diseases we might fall prey to, we can make changes, such as adopting a healthy lifestyle, to reduce our risk of contracting those diseases. Tom Miller, the Director of Health Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, said that genetic testing "holds great promise in fine-tuning health care treatment" and that it "might help individuals take preventive measures to reduce the consequences of disease". When patients know what kind of illnesses they are susceptible to, they can do what is necessary to reduce the risk of developing that disease, and thus improve their quality of life.
Genetic testing increases the probability of privacy violation and discrimination, but these risks are heightened only if there are no or weak mechanisms in place that protect the sensitive and personal information created by genetic testing. However, to ignore the massive potential that genetic testing has for the health of the future populace would be equal to committing a crime against humanity. Therefore, to derive the full benefits of genetic testing, there should be strong laws regulating the use of and access to genetic data. The genetic testing debate shows that science does not exist in a moral, legal or ethical vacuum, and that these issues are almost always more important than the scientific advancements themselves.
Friday, September 4, 2009
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Personal Narrative for ERP
1b) Write about your relationship with an elder person, and reflect on what ageing means to you.
We all can think of people who have left such profound and indelible marks on our lives that it would be impossible for us to forget them. For me, that person was my grandfather. Whenever I think of him, I hear his animated voice, reminiscing about his life, from the kind of mischief that he and his friends were up to when they had nothing to do to the relaxed pace of daily life. He always had a story to tell, and I was always ready to listen. Since my grandfather grew up in a village, a far cry from the modern city, I always enjoyed listening to his vivid recollections of his activities and interactions with others. He used to talk about how he and his friends used to play marbles in the dusty roads, with him winning almost always because of his extraordinary skill. He used to talk about how it was like studying every evening under a lit candle, and the challenge of keeping the book just near enough so that he could read without burning the book. He used to talk about how after dinner everyone would gather and have a lively conversation. I would always find myself engrossed, fascinated with everything that he had to say.
For all his eccentricities and sometimes peculiar behaviors, my grandfather gave me several invaluable insights into the process of ageing. Ageing is an accumulation of knowledge, of experience, and most importantly, an understanding of life. With old age comes the time to slow down and think about what really matters. When we realize that nothing in life is permanent, we begin to treasure and cherish the small things in life and appreciate the people around us. Morning coffee making was nothing short of a ritual for my grandfather, who seemed to relish every aspect, from pouring the coffee beans into the pot to drinking the coffee. Not only that, if me or my other family members needed any help, he would put down whatever he was doing and be there for us. It was, to say the least, heartwarming.
However, I also believe that ageing also brings with it a sense of regret. When my grandfather and I used to talk about his past, I could not help but feel that there was tinge of disappointment in his words, a certain grief that had not been healed by time. As we grow old, we find ourselves thinking about what we could have done better. We find ourselves thinking that had we done things a bit differently in the past, our life would have been that much better. No one has ever led a perfect life, and these frustrations are all but an inexorable part of ageing that we simply have to accept.
Whatever ageing might bring, be it wisdom or regret, it never results in a lessening of enthusiasm and zest for life, a truth to which my grandfather was testament.
We all can think of people who have left such profound and indelible marks on our lives that it would be impossible for us to forget them. For me, that person was my grandfather. Whenever I think of him, I hear his animated voice, reminiscing about his life, from the kind of mischief that he and his friends were up to when they had nothing to do to the relaxed pace of daily life. He always had a story to tell, and I was always ready to listen. Since my grandfather grew up in a village, a far cry from the modern city, I always enjoyed listening to his vivid recollections of his activities and interactions with others. He used to talk about how he and his friends used to play marbles in the dusty roads, with him winning almost always because of his extraordinary skill. He used to talk about how it was like studying every evening under a lit candle, and the challenge of keeping the book just near enough so that he could read without burning the book. He used to talk about how after dinner everyone would gather and have a lively conversation. I would always find myself engrossed, fascinated with everything that he had to say.
For all his eccentricities and sometimes peculiar behaviors, my grandfather gave me several invaluable insights into the process of ageing. Ageing is an accumulation of knowledge, of experience, and most importantly, an understanding of life. With old age comes the time to slow down and think about what really matters. When we realize that nothing in life is permanent, we begin to treasure and cherish the small things in life and appreciate the people around us. Morning coffee making was nothing short of a ritual for my grandfather, who seemed to relish every aspect, from pouring the coffee beans into the pot to drinking the coffee. Not only that, if me or my other family members needed any help, he would put down whatever he was doing and be there for us. It was, to say the least, heartwarming.
However, I also believe that ageing also brings with it a sense of regret. When my grandfather and I used to talk about his past, I could not help but feel that there was tinge of disappointment in his words, a certain grief that had not been healed by time. As we grow old, we find ourselves thinking about what we could have done better. We find ourselves thinking that had we done things a bit differently in the past, our life would have been that much better. No one has ever led a perfect life, and these frustrations are all but an inexorable part of ageing that we simply have to accept.
Whatever ageing might bring, be it wisdom or regret, it never results in a lessening of enthusiasm and zest for life, a truth to which my grandfather was testament.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Response to "The Evolution of Goodness"
I agree with the biological point of view that animals, including humans, display altruistic tendencies towards other individuals who are genetically closely related to them. This is very evident in our daily lives, where we are more than willing to help our relatives in their times of need, be it emotionally, financially or otherwise. That being said, I think that the theory only explains human kindness and magnanimity to a certain extent. How would you explain the countless numbers of people who dedicate their lives to helping people in impoverished countries or to a cause which they feel strongly about? Our ability to reason, understand, think and empathise differentiates us from other animals. As such, our motivations for engaging in acts of altruism cannot be explained with a simple mathematical equation. It goes far beyond that.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Globalisation does not help poor countries
The world is getting smaller. Yes, you heard it right. The world is getting smaller. Impossible? The world is becoming a “global village” through a process known as globalization. Globalisation is, in the words of Milton Friedman, “an overarching international system” that integrates the world socially, politically, economically, culturally and financially. Globalization impacts everyone, and I will be exploring the effects of globalization on developing countries. I believe that developing countries are not deriving the full benefits of globalization. This is mainly due to three factors, namely, the exploitation of workers, the unequal distribution of income and the unfairness of trade rules that especially disadvantage impoverished countries.
One major reason why poor countries are not benefiting as much as they should from globalization is because their workers are being exploited by Multi-National Corporations (MNCs). The availability of cheap labour attracts MNCs to the impoverished countries , where they hope to reduce their costs of production. A considerable number of workers are stripped of their fundamental human rights in the factories where they work. The factories, in attempt to meet the demands set out by the corporations, which almost border on the unreasonable, force the workers to work for long hours in inhuman conditions. For example, international sports manufacturer Nike admitted that 25% of the workers in its factories were paid below the minimum legal requirement. It also said that, after conducting an undercover investigation, it found evidence of verbal and physical abuse and intolerable conditions. Between 25% and 50% of its workers were punished because they refused to work overtime with little or no pay.
It would be unjust to say that globalization does not provide any benefits for developing countries. Developing countries have been able to significantly reduce the poverty rates because of direct foreign investment. When MNCs enter foreign labour markets, they provide members of the local communities with job opportunities. The income that the workers earn through working for these corporations lifts them and their families out of abject poverty, stopping the vicious circle of illiteracy and unemployment. For example, the poverty rates in China have fallen drastically from 64% in the late 1970s when China first embarked on its economic reform, to just under 10% today. India, although not as significant, has also experienced a drop in poverty rates. In 1981, when it was about to adopt an outward oriented economic approach, 60% of its people were living under the poverty line. This figure dropped to 42% in 2005.
Globalisation widens the chasm between the rich and the poor. Although poor countries have seen a reduction of poverty, as mentioned above, when compared to the other countries, they have not made much progress. In absolute terms developing countries have seen growth and advancement, but in relative terms, their growth has been sluggish. The rich countries have been accumulating wealth at an unprecedented rate, while the poor countries are still languishing in their wake. According to the UNDP 1999 Development Report, the ratio of income between the rich countries and the poor countries has increased from 30 to 1 in 1960 to 82 to 1 in 1995. Also, 20% of the world’s richest people account for about 82% of the total GDP, while the poorest 20% account for a measly 1%. Although there has been a phenomenal increase in the total amount of wealth accumulated, it is not evenly distributed, with the rich countries earning disproportionately more than their poorer counterparts.
Another barrier to the economic development of the poor nations is the unfairness that they face in the international trade arena. Rich nations such as the United States, United Kingdom and Japan impose extremely high tariffs on the exports of developing countries, making them substantially more expensive, which turns off most customers. These protectionist practices make it virtually impossible for the developing countries to earn income on their exports, making economic advancement seem like a distant, unattainable dream. For example, American taxes on goods imported from Bangladesh, Cambodia and Mongolia stood at 14%, 15.8% and 16.1% respectively, while taxes on goods imported from Norway and France stood at 0.5% and 1.1% respectively. Secondly, rich countries manage to discourage most of their citizens from buying the agricultural products exported by the developing nations by giving subsidies to their own farmers. The farmers of the rich countries are then able to sell their goods at a lower price than their counterparts from the poor countries who are not fortunate enough to receive subsidies. International organizations such as the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and especially the World Trade Organization turn a blind eye towards such discriminatory and protectionist practices because they are dominated by the very countries that implement such policies.
Poor countries are unable to derive all the possible benefits because of the exploitation, discrimination and inequality that they face. Just like fire, globalization is neither good nor bad in itself. If we are able to harness it and take advantage of it while mitigating the negative aspects of it, it might just be the best thing that has ever happened to humanity.
One major reason why poor countries are not benefiting as much as they should from globalization is because their workers are being exploited by Multi-National Corporations (MNCs). The availability of cheap labour attracts MNCs to the impoverished countries , where they hope to reduce their costs of production. A considerable number of workers are stripped of their fundamental human rights in the factories where they work. The factories, in attempt to meet the demands set out by the corporations, which almost border on the unreasonable, force the workers to work for long hours in inhuman conditions. For example, international sports manufacturer Nike admitted that 25% of the workers in its factories were paid below the minimum legal requirement. It also said that, after conducting an undercover investigation, it found evidence of verbal and physical abuse and intolerable conditions. Between 25% and 50% of its workers were punished because they refused to work overtime with little or no pay.
It would be unjust to say that globalization does not provide any benefits for developing countries. Developing countries have been able to significantly reduce the poverty rates because of direct foreign investment. When MNCs enter foreign labour markets, they provide members of the local communities with job opportunities. The income that the workers earn through working for these corporations lifts them and their families out of abject poverty, stopping the vicious circle of illiteracy and unemployment. For example, the poverty rates in China have fallen drastically from 64% in the late 1970s when China first embarked on its economic reform, to just under 10% today. India, although not as significant, has also experienced a drop in poverty rates. In 1981, when it was about to adopt an outward oriented economic approach, 60% of its people were living under the poverty line. This figure dropped to 42% in 2005.
Globalisation widens the chasm between the rich and the poor. Although poor countries have seen a reduction of poverty, as mentioned above, when compared to the other countries, they have not made much progress. In absolute terms developing countries have seen growth and advancement, but in relative terms, their growth has been sluggish. The rich countries have been accumulating wealth at an unprecedented rate, while the poor countries are still languishing in their wake. According to the UNDP 1999 Development Report, the ratio of income between the rich countries and the poor countries has increased from 30 to 1 in 1960 to 82 to 1 in 1995. Also, 20% of the world’s richest people account for about 82% of the total GDP, while the poorest 20% account for a measly 1%. Although there has been a phenomenal increase in the total amount of wealth accumulated, it is not evenly distributed, with the rich countries earning disproportionately more than their poorer counterparts.
Another barrier to the economic development of the poor nations is the unfairness that they face in the international trade arena. Rich nations such as the United States, United Kingdom and Japan impose extremely high tariffs on the exports of developing countries, making them substantially more expensive, which turns off most customers. These protectionist practices make it virtually impossible for the developing countries to earn income on their exports, making economic advancement seem like a distant, unattainable dream. For example, American taxes on goods imported from Bangladesh, Cambodia and Mongolia stood at 14%, 15.8% and 16.1% respectively, while taxes on goods imported from Norway and France stood at 0.5% and 1.1% respectively. Secondly, rich countries manage to discourage most of their citizens from buying the agricultural products exported by the developing nations by giving subsidies to their own farmers. The farmers of the rich countries are then able to sell their goods at a lower price than their counterparts from the poor countries who are not fortunate enough to receive subsidies. International organizations such as the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and especially the World Trade Organization turn a blind eye towards such discriminatory and protectionist practices because they are dominated by the very countries that implement such policies.
Poor countries are unable to derive all the possible benefits because of the exploitation, discrimination and inequality that they face. Just like fire, globalization is neither good nor bad in itself. If we are able to harness it and take advantage of it while mitigating the negative aspects of it, it might just be the best thing that has ever happened to humanity.
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Spiced up introduction
You open this door and step into a dark, cold, unfriendly room. Your footsteps echo off the walls. You feel the hairs on the back of your neck stand. Hoping to illuminate the room, you grope along the wall, tyring to find the switch to the light. Suddenly, you feel something protruding from the wall. Thinking its the switch, you flick it, and the light comes on. The objects in front of you are undescribable and shocking. You feel you heart sink to the bottom of your stomach, and you begin to feel nauseous. In the colossal room are rows and rows of tubes with foetuses suspended in a thick, viscous fluid. A notice catches your eye. It says:
" Foetuses cultivated for stem cell harvesting. Unauthorised access restricted."
A nightmare scenario? Possibly. Stem cell research is a hotly debated topic in today’s advanced society. Although it is undeniable that it is a groundbreaking technology that has the potential to eradicate some of the most devastating and debilitating diseases that have plagued humanity since time immemorial, it does raise some serious ethical and moral concerns.
" Foetuses cultivated for stem cell harvesting. Unauthorised access restricted."
A nightmare scenario? Possibly. Stem cell research is a hotly debated topic in today’s advanced society. Although it is undeniable that it is a groundbreaking technology that has the potential to eradicate some of the most devastating and debilitating diseases that have plagued humanity since time immemorial, it does raise some serious ethical and moral concerns.
Saturday, April 4, 2009
Stem Cell Research: Yes or No?
Should stem cell research be allowed to take place? Is it immoral? Stem cell research is a hotly debated topic in today’s advanced society. Although it is undeniable that it is a groundbreaking technology that has the potential to eradicate some of the most devastating and debilitating diseases that have plagued humanity since time immemorial, it does raise some serious ethical and moral concerns.
Embryonic and adult stem cells may hold the keys that will unlock the cures for diseases like Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, and diabetes. Stem cells are undeveloped cells which can differentiate into any specialized cell type. These cells, if injected into the affected area, can differentiate into the cell type that is prevalent in that part of the body, and repair the damaged tissue. In the April 2007 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association, 15 young diabetics were injected with stem cells drawn from their own blood. 13 out of the 15 patients that participated in the study did not have to inject themselves with insulin daily for three years after undergoing the treatment. A South Korean woman by the name of Hwang Mi-Soon, who had been paralyzed for about 20 years was able to walk again with the aid of a walking frame after scientists repaired her damaged spine using stem cells extracted from cord blood. Even the researchers were not expecting the treatment to be as effective as it was, as evidenced by the surprise expressed by one researcher, "We were all surprised at the fast improvements in the patient."
Despite being, possibly, the next extraordinary breakthrough in medical science, stem cell research is fraught with issues pertaining to morality and ethics. Embryonic cells have to be destroyed in order to facilitate the removal of embryonic stem cells, arguably the most versatile of all stem cells. To people who believe that life begins from the moment of conception, the destruction of embryos is equivalent to the destruction of life. One fervent supporter of this view is former President of the United States George Walker Bush, who vetoed the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, which provides more funding and loosens restrictions on stem cell research, on moral grounds. "The bill would support the taking of innocent human life in the hope of finding medical benefits for others," he was quoted as saying.
Although there is merit in the argument that stem cell research destroys life, we cannot and should not ignore the incontrovertible potential that stem cell research holds. While embryonic stem cells are irrefutably the most versatile, there are other types of stem cells that can be extracted without endangering or destroying life, like cord blood stem cells. There are innumerable people who are ridden with insufferable illnesses, and the only way for them to be able to live dignified lives could be through stem cell treatment. Although I am not suggesting that we lower ourselves into a state of moral turpitude, I do think that ultimately, there is a price to pay for everything that we do, and in this case, if humanity stands to gain so much out of stem cell research, it is only right that we pay that price.
Embryonic and adult stem cells may hold the keys that will unlock the cures for diseases like Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, and diabetes. Stem cells are undeveloped cells which can differentiate into any specialized cell type. These cells, if injected into the affected area, can differentiate into the cell type that is prevalent in that part of the body, and repair the damaged tissue. In the April 2007 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association, 15 young diabetics were injected with stem cells drawn from their own blood. 13 out of the 15 patients that participated in the study did not have to inject themselves with insulin daily for three years after undergoing the treatment. A South Korean woman by the name of Hwang Mi-Soon, who had been paralyzed for about 20 years was able to walk again with the aid of a walking frame after scientists repaired her damaged spine using stem cells extracted from cord blood. Even the researchers were not expecting the treatment to be as effective as it was, as evidenced by the surprise expressed by one researcher, "We were all surprised at the fast improvements in the patient."
Despite being, possibly, the next extraordinary breakthrough in medical science, stem cell research is fraught with issues pertaining to morality and ethics. Embryonic cells have to be destroyed in order to facilitate the removal of embryonic stem cells, arguably the most versatile of all stem cells. To people who believe that life begins from the moment of conception, the destruction of embryos is equivalent to the destruction of life. One fervent supporter of this view is former President of the United States George Walker Bush, who vetoed the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, which provides more funding and loosens restrictions on stem cell research, on moral grounds. "The bill would support the taking of innocent human life in the hope of finding medical benefits for others," he was quoted as saying.
Although there is merit in the argument that stem cell research destroys life, we cannot and should not ignore the incontrovertible potential that stem cell research holds. While embryonic stem cells are irrefutably the most versatile, there are other types of stem cells that can be extracted without endangering or destroying life, like cord blood stem cells. There are innumerable people who are ridden with insufferable illnesses, and the only way for them to be able to live dignified lives could be through stem cell treatment. Although I am not suggesting that we lower ourselves into a state of moral turpitude, I do think that ultimately, there is a price to pay for everything that we do, and in this case, if humanity stands to gain so much out of stem cell research, it is only right that we pay that price.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Should students be allowed to make their own rules?
Students should be able to set their own rules. Students can be rather obdurate, especially when it comes to obeying rules, whose rationale they may not understand. The recrudescence of rule-breaking can serve to make school administrators and teachers diffident in their ability to control students. However, if the students are allowed to construct their own rules, they can understand the reasoning behind the construction and implementation of rules. Consequently, a reasonable level of rectitude can be expected of the students. The small group of malcontents who still persist in breaking rules can then be held accountable, as they broke the rules that they themselves created. If we are to create rules, why not let the students do it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)