Question

Suppose that gene therapy could be used to lower levels of cholesterol and saturated fat in the blood, thus allowing people to consume fat-rich fried foods with little risk of heart disease. However, this treatment might not work for everyone, and there would be no way of knowing in advance who would benefit. As a result, some people would inevitably die prematurely from heart disease. Should such gene therapy be approved for use in humans? Answer this question by briefly describing how a bioethicist who believes in a utilitarian approach might view this scenario, and contrast this perspective with a deontological viewpoint.

basic biotechnology

Answer 1

Well, actually these two tend to be opposed ethics. The utilitarian path states that the answer relies in assessing if the proposed therapy will bring benefits to the whole population, in this case we could talk about certain human population or even the whole human species, regardless of the damage we might end causing to specific individuals, if there is a major benefit for the general population then it is a good option to apply the therapy. This path would conclude this therapy in general will eliminate a great portion of possible deaths, will reduce moratility in general so it has to be applied.

Now, the deontological path states that the answer relies in assesing whether the proposed therapy is good or wrong based on the action per se, and not the possible good consequences of the action. This path would assess what you are doing individually to each person, you are giving each individual uncertainty about his/her future and possibilities of dying or living if consuming high cholesterol and saturated fats diet, this is a wrong action, so this therapy cannot be applied.