Hacker News Reader

Comment by nuc1e0n | Hacker News Reader

I wouldn't go that far. Other, less invasive treatments should still be available IMHO, but there should remain an element of personal accountability. Gene editing is a very powerful tool, and messing with complex systems in powerful ways that we don't fully understand could be a recipe for many troubles down the line. I think the use of gene editing should be very surgically applied to obviously detrimental mutations, not for some scatter gun like approach.

What if the body raising cholesterol levels serves some purpose we aren't yet aware of? I've heard there's some evidence that medication to reduce blood pressure has a potential link to the onset of Parkinson's disease. Maybe messing with blood pressure in that way without addressing underlying causes has been a mistake, and messing with cholesterol levels without addressing underlying causes could also be.

View on HN

That is why we do long and expensive trials before approving any medication for use.

Having said that, we have we been medically lowering people's cholesterol levels for decades, and the evidence seems pretty clear at this point that it is a net health benefit to those for whom treatment is indicated.

It is not at all obvious that targeted gene editing would be more disruptive to the body compared to flooding the body with a drug that happens to interfere with the one part of the process that we found a drug to interfere with.

Particularly if we are editing the gene to match a form that is already present in much of the population.

Some issues could only become evident over a period of hundreds of years with gene editing. That's longer than any medical trial I'm aware of. And mistakes made would be difficult, if not impossible, to undo.

If medications can already do what's required for cholesterol issues, why wouldn't we continue to use them rather than making some change to affect a complex balance that could cause problems over very long timescales?

If we were to be editing a specific gene to match what the wider population has, then I'd be more ok with that.

We should give or deny medical treatment based on our personal values, such as responsibility.

Medical ethics boards already do such things don't they?

You're confused. Maybe do some research on ethics boards?

If you think so, what sources would you recommend? According to Wikipedia on medical ethics, "These values include the respect for autonomy". Not expecting any level of self control doesn't show respect for autonomy IMHO.

The AMA Principles of Medical Ethics[1] is a good starting point.

Principle nine reads as;

> IX. A physician shall support access to medical care for all people.

I can't in good conscious find withholding care due to the value of personal responsibility with supporting access to medical care for all people.

1. https://code-medical-ethics.ama-assn.org/principles

Interesting. I'll look into that. The Hippocratic oath says that a physician should do no harm (ἐπὶ δηλήσει δὲ καὶ ἀδικίῃ εἴρξειν). It's a personal value judgement as to whether some intervention is providing medical care or causing harm. I consider reckless genetic modification to be causing harm.

> The Hippocratic oath says that a physician should do no harm

No it doesn't. Such a standard would make the practice of medicine impossible, as all treatments have some risk of harm.

What is relevant to this discussion is the below excerpt of the modern form of the oath:

> I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures which are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com