Implant tractable ID chips in newborn babies Essay

Our company’s idea to implant tractable ID chips in newborn babies offers a revolutionary approach to effectively combat the high incidences of abductions of newborns and children, a menace against which eve police forces are finding themselves helpless. Once the chip is placed within children, their every movement can be traced to exactitude using the GPRS technology, making their abduction and subsequent hiding a practically impossible task. Apart from this, these IDs would act as a database for these children, containing their relevant medical, physiological and personal details, with provisions of constant upgrades. Thus doctors needs to only access children’s ID to know their history of previous medical complications and treatments, police officers can easily trace parents of a lost child and parents can keep constant vigil on the movement of their children even from their workplace. However, there are many exacting complications in successful rollout of this idea. It can be safely assumed that this concept would come under severe moral, ethical, and religious censure through the entire world. Many, if not all, would form organizations and international groups to canvass on social and legal platforms against our proposal to ‘tag’ human infants, and doubts would be raised on even our integrity, commitment and sanity. Moreover, the thrust of objection and criticism is likely to come from our own scientific intelligentsia, religious and spiritual gurus, intellectuals and similar eminent personalities. These estimated objections and criticism are hardly a surprising possibility, given world’s historical anathema against every new scientific invention or discovery, any path-breaking medicinal technology, or even against any idea that appeared contrary to its set of framed ideas and concepts. History is replete with evidences that from the time of Archimedes to modern day age of cloning, people have always approached every major scientific and technological breakthrough with skepticism, incredulity and more than often, downright hostility. We can see how strong the sentiments ran when Copernicus presented the theory that its Sun that is at center of solar system, and not moon and that world is sphere shaped, against what world had been led to believe (Hall, 1954). Later Galileo was humiliated by Roman Church on the same issue. We further see the way almost entire educated western society rose against Charles Darwin for his theory of evolution through natural selection and the stringent social and religious criticism he was subjected to (Hall, 1954). Even Einstein, one of the greatest human brains of all times, was not spared from hostile criticism and rejection when he denied the existence of gravity in his general theory of relativity (Hawkins, 1988). Technological innovations and many scientific inventions were treated with similar aggressive denial and denunciation. Whether it was construction of railway locomotives, invention of telegraphs and telephones, constructions of dams, introduction of vaccination techniques, advent of contraceptive pills, gene therapy or subject of cloning and stem cell research, a significant section of society always protested and rejected the concept on plethora of supposedly ethical and moral grounds (Thomas, 2005). It is futile to say that each of these innovations contributed to further advancement and growth of human society. The reason of this persistent fear of new technological innovations is that they defy and sometimes even break the existing concepts, perceptions and notions. Often these concepts and perceptions are embedded part of a social culture, and therefore their rejection is construed as a planned attack by scientists and technicians on the very foundation of the culture (Lyne, 2005). We cannot flippantly dismiss their fears, and overlook their arguments just because they happen to contradict our idea. Instead, we need to reach out to people, address their every valid question and dispel their remotest of the doubts related to implant of IDs in newborn babies. My own understanding of the issue says that we should move ahead with project because when people are presented with rational arguments and valid answers to their queries, their gravest arguments turns in staunchest of the support. Indeed, one of their first objections we are likely to face is ethical as well as medical propriety of inserting an unnecessary foreign object in the fragile body of a newborn. But as we maintain, this implant is done for children’s own security and safety. Further, the chip is especially designed in such a way that its implant would cause minimum distress for child and the implant can be done by any surgeon through a very superficial incision. The presence or location of the chip may very well remain unknown to child unless specifically told. Of course, implanting a foreign object in human body in itself is no more an ethical issue, especially after advent of pacemakers and artificial limbs. Rather a valid query may concern the possible radiation effect of the chip on child’s developing body, and whether that this radiation would impede or in any way alter hormonal or chemical composition of the growing child. But as our repeated lab tests and years of experiments have shown, the chip does not interfere with human bio- chemical growth in any way. It stays in the body like a neutral object, deactivated unless recalled for. Even upon activation, the signals emitted by chip are no more harmful than the fields of electromagnetic radiation surrounding us every second of our life. The final debate around our proposed chip would center on moral and ethical issue of tagging children. Is it right to tag children like animals are tagged in zoo and safari and then observed? Further, when these children grow up, they might become uncomfortable with the idea of being watched or remotely tracked for their every movement, and may very likely treat this an infringement of their privacy. But in my opinion, these objections are specious, and deviating from our main issue- that of stopping crime and providing a safe and secure world for children. Parents, and later on Children, may be given the option to remove or manually deactivate the chip, when they start to feel that it is more a burden than as a benefit. However, for that time that it is there, it is the best way to ensure infants are secure, safe and sound under their parent’s, physicians and teacher’s constant observation. It is the best way to completely eliminate the threat of organized abduction industry, and certainly it is the surest way to ensure that no child goes every lost or missing. I would reiterate therefore we should confidently move ahead with this revolutionary idea and usher in the new era of human-technology integration.