Is gene therapy the future of treating genetic disease?

Hi guys!
I am currently doing my EPQ on gene therapy and wanted to get people's opinions as part of my research.
If you could answer a few of my questions, I would really appreciate it.
My questions are:

1) How far do you agree that gene therapy is the future of treating genetic disease and why?
2) Which factor should be considered the most important when developing a new treatment for illnesses? (e.g. cost effective, quality of life, effectiveness/success rate)
3) Should the government and the NHS fund gene therapy treatment for patients?

Thank you very much!!!!

Hi guys!
I am currently doing my EPQ on gene therapy and wanted to get people's opinions as part of my research.
If you could answer a few of my questions, I would really appreciate it.
My questions are:

1) How far do you agree that gene therapy is the future of treating genetic disease and why?
2) Which factor should be considered the most important when developing a new treatment for illnesses? (e.g. cost effective, quality of life, effectiveness/success rate)
3) Should the government and the NHS fund gene therapy treatment for patients?

Thank you very much!!!!

1) In the cases where the new genes can be expressed in all relevant cells, I agree 100% that gene therapy should be used because then all the symptoms will be permantly gone and no further medication will be needed

2) Definately quality of life is most important, but it still has to be cost effective (i.e. harsh as it sounds, if the person will never work then it shouldn't be given or if the person is predicted to only have a few years of life anyway it shouldn't be given)

3) Like my answer for number 2, it should be provided by the NHS only if the person will be able to work in the future and will gain life from it (i.e. someone who is already 70 years old shouldn't be eligible)

This is a bit harsh. That 70 year old will have paid thousands (minimum) more into the system than someone much younger than them. They funded the developments of their working life so why should they not benefit now?!

You said it yourself, gene therapy will create superhumans. Now where exactly to draw the line is difficult, but providing retirement stays at 65, that still gives people 5 years after retirement to enjoy their well earned retirement. If you start treating people over 70, either they won't actually gain many years from it so per year the therapy is actually more expensive (i.e. a 10 year old has the potiental to get 70 years + so cost divided by 70 years is a lot less than for a 70 year old who may get 10 good years out of it). You may argue, well the 10 year old could be involved in a freak accident and die 2 days after treatment, but in general since the treatment in the beginning would be very expensive, the biggest gainers should get it. Also a 70 year old has no dependants, whereas a 30/40 year old is likely to have dependant children. Also, I read that the chances of gene therapy working after the age of 60 (or could have been 50 I can't quite remember) is significantly lower.