Final Peer Response- Marijuana legalization

            While reading through blogs, I came across a controversial topic on Matt Cavallaris’ blog. The topic was legalization of marijuana.  Matt explains to the reader that there in fact have been multiple states within the United States that has already legalized medical marijuana. He also points out that some people are often too distracted by the fact that the drug is what many teens use for recreational purposes to get high. However, many people are not aware of the benefits of marijuana in the medical world, as it is often used in chemotherapy and for chronic disorders.

            Matt posted two youtube videos into his blog. The first was of Barrack Obama justifying that marijuana is in fact no different than any other prescription that doctors give out. The other is a commercial that only presents the detrimental aspects of legalizing marijuana. It proposes that legalizing it would only constitute to a worse society with more addictions, more driving under the influence of the drug, more land being used for the plant’s growth, and other problems.

            Matt sided with Barrack Obama. I do understand how Matt and other supporters find the positive points of legalizing marijuana convincing, however I still am unsure of where I stand. The arguments presented here are not so convincing for me to sway my decision either way. I believe that if marijuana could be administered to a patient within a hospital without allowing the patient to leave with the drug would be acceptable. The primary concern of legalizing it, to me, is the easy access to it. People who do not need the drug for medical purposes may abuse it and become addicted which could turn to be detrimental.

View Matt's Blog

Germline Gene Therapy

            Ethics and medicine seem to always be clashing in the news reports. Abortion, cloning, and stem cell use are all examples of ethical clashes with medical advancements. Recently I’ve come to learn about an advancement that is still in the making and may be seen as unethical.

 I was introduced to the manipulation of genes, also referred to as germline gene therapy, in my human sexuality class this past fall. An egg, sperm, or early embryo may be manipulated so that the child that is born has specific desired traits: eye color, hair color, gender, and many others. The manipulated embryo is then transferred to the mother through in vitro fertilization or another mean of assisted reproduction. Many find this unethical and say that it is unfair to make genetically perfect human beings who have an edge in advancing in society. However, I feel that a portion of this is underreported as manipulating genes may avoid genetic diseases, therefore contributing to a healthier society.

Producing a healthier society is the argument that I found most compelling in an article I read online. It said, “Think about confronting a person in the future with a genetic disease that you could have prevented," said Walters, the Georgetown ethicist, "and telling them that even though you knew how to fix it, you stopped because you thought society might abuse this thing." I believe that fighting off diseases is most important, however controlling the gene therapy process is important.

The next argument I found was in the con section of an article. It discussed that genetic diversity may become minimal which could increase our collective susceptibility to newly emerging diseases. It also states it is unethical to “play god” in making genetic decisions. Although compelling, I still believe those who could be saved from suffering from genetic diseases should be while limiting its use for cosmetic purposes.