Readers React: The ethics of editing genes to eliminate certain diseases

To the editor: Although great strides have been made in genome therapy, we do not yet have a complete set of criteria for evaluating interventions to eliminate genetic diseases or their social outcomes. Within the context of genetic medicine, researchers and clinicians strive to cure or prevent diseases or predispositions to diseases; however, significant safety and efficacy concerns must be addressed. (“Editing life: Scientists can, but should they?,” Nov. 30)

This debate has been ongoing for decades, and it includes reconciling the distinction between “therapy” and “enhancement.”

Additionally, one must posit whether the intervention fits within the goals of medicine and serves the good of the patient. This analysis forces probing what that “good” is.

Simply because a genetic modification may perhaps be outside the perceived goals of medicine does not necessarily mean it is immoral or unethical; however, it does require further reflection in order to justify it and possible off-target effects (the “double effect,” per Thomas Aquinas).

We must continue to be aware of what kind of judgments we are making in medicine.

Richard Boudreau, MD, Marina del Rey

The writer is a bioethicist at Loyola Marymount University.

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook