Are modern medical practices weakening the human gene pool and adversely affecting the possible future of our entire race?   Are our advancements in the fields of genetic research and manipulation simply allowing those who would not otherwise have survived to reproduce?   Should we instead let Darwin's theory of natural selection run free and stop this impediment of the most basic of natural laws?   These questions and many others like them have fueled bioethical debates for years, especially as our advances in science and medicine grow rapidly.   As with any debate, there are those who lie far on either side of an opinion and the answer may be found somewhere in the hazy middle ground.   In this paper, I will be exploring the different views on this topic from both sides.
Charles Darwin made famous the idea that members of a species that either possess certain advantageous traits or lack certain disadvantageous traits have a better chance at surviving and reproducing than less fortunate members of the species.   This natural selection theory has stood up to the test of time and continues hold merit over one hundred and fifty years later.   Medicine, however, has changed immensely in the past one hundred and fifty years.   Diseases that Darwin would have seen as a fatal are now treatable and curable.   He may have seen current medical advances (such as organ transplant) as a weakening of the human gene pool, which in the end will lead to the extinction of our race.   By helping the weaker members of the species survive and reproduce, we create a weaker species as a whole.
The extinction of a race can come from many different factors, including environment, predators and genetic factors, but for our purposes I will simply look at the genetic factors.   Genetic pollution can lead to a weaker form of the species that cannot cope with the environment and natural predators that it previously withstood.   As medical science evolves and enables us to make changes to our genetic...