enhancements were accessible to all parents, we must posit the question: Do parents
have a moral duty to genetically enhance their children?
In order to explore one such argument for genetic enhancement, we can use
childhood vaccines in comparison. Parents have the obligational authority to make
medical decisions for their children (Bester, 2020), including preventative medical
care such as ensuring children receive vaccinations against disease; this is an ethical
principle known as the ‘best interest standard’, wherein during all decisions the chosen
option should be one that best ensures a child’s welfare. Thus, as Bester (2020) claims,
parents arguably have a moral obligation to ensure their children are vaccinated.
Similarly, would this not imply that parents have a moral duty to enhance their
children genetically? If we consider a parent morally blameworthy for not vaccinating
or allowing a child medical treatment against a disease or illness as it goes against the
child’s welfare (Bester, 2020), then we could argue the same for genetic enhancement.
If we could alter a child’s genes to improve their immune system or to create
immunity to disease outright, we could forego the vaccination and natural
immunisation process of getting sick altogether while still garnering their benefits. We
could thus argue that denying such enhancements could be comparable to denying
vaccines or other medications that aid the immune system. Furthermore, if we can
compare denying such enhancements to the refusal of recommended medical
treatments, we could argue that such denial would fall under some definitions of
medical neglect wherein parents refuse children proper health care (NSPCC, n.d.),
making parents morally blameworthy for medical neglect in the denial of genetic
enhancements.
19
Made with FlippingBook HTML5