The use of genome editing and alteration to design and engineer the attributes of future children has been supported and approved by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics; the report states that it is morally and ethically permissible to use genome alterations to alter the genes of future children in specific situations. But then he said that genetic modification of humans should happen after checking the bioethics boxes. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay Various researchers and bioethicists, especially belonging to the United States, have reached occlusions just like that of the Nuffield Council, but their reason for support is completely different. Genetic mutation should be performed only so that the genes of children who are about to be born with serious diseases can be altered, provided that drugs and alternatives are not available, and not mutated just to be able to achieve cosmetic changes. This report's decision goes against a boundless worldwide statement that hereditary genetic mutation should remain beyond limits, a commitment reflected in the laws of numerous countries, in a binding European treaty, in some universal statements and in various popular sentiments revisions. The report clearly states that genetic modification cannot replace medicine. It does not attempt to legitimize hereditary alteration as a method of preventing the transmission of genuine hereditary diseases; recognizes that this can be achieved using existing reproductive systems, for example the embryo screening procedure known as hereditary diagnosis or preimplantation genetics. Once again, it seems strange that advocates of hereditary inheritance change would raise the possibility of a world in which the wealthy purchase inheritance assets for their children, and to recognize that, if widely embraced, this great innovation could "create or worsen social division , or undervalue or hinder groups in the eyes of the public." To be sure, maintaining a strategic distance from such inevitability is one of two standards offered as a manual for the moral use of genome-altering hereditary intercessions. Please note: this is just an example. Get a custom paper from our expert writers now. Get a Custom Essay The question that arises is: why would anyone get a genetically mutated embryo if the baby is perfectly fine? So why did the above statements raise issues that represent already existing bans? The points raised are generally raised as part of the fact that current denials of hereditary hereditary alteration should be maintained and strengthened.