Eugenics and the ethics of selective reproduction (original) (raw)
Related papers
“Actuality of Eugenics”
The Editors One of the most hotly debated concepts in contemporary bioethics, eugenics is often reduced to an evil of Nazism that should have been discarded long ago. In this video dialogue, two leading scholars of eugenics— Ruth Schwartz Cowan and Rosemarie Garland-Thomson—contextualize and complicate the current discussion of eugenic practices. Beginning with a discussion of the definition of eugenics, the dialogue then examines how the history of eugenics can help us understand contemporary reproductive practice practices that are often labeled as " eugenist, " including prenatal screening and the selective abortion of fetuses with disabilities. It then examines the relationship between disability discrimination and reproductive freedom, and concludes by addressing the extent to which the association between eugenics and Nazism is useful to understanding contemporary medical practices.
A Critique and Commentary on "The Road to Eugenics
1996
Preparing my paper on Medicaid managed care and reproductive genetics gave me the opportunity to reflect on Dr. Bowman's very thoughtful and incisive essay on eugenics. Bowman explains how eugenics has been practiced from ancient times to the present. He further describes how some policies and programs, laws and regulations, have intentionally and inadvertently brought about eugenic practices and/or results. Bowman stresses that minorities and other social undesirables are particularly at risk to eugenic practices. With the mapping of the human genome, problems which were once considered social in nature like alcoholism and criminal behavior will be linked to genetics. Thus, rather than being treated through traditional psycho-social remedies, these behaviors may be approached like other genetic disorders. This approach may allow us to dismiss our responsibility to address these problems as a society. Bowman notes that laws and practices with eugenic implications are often designed for other purposes. Medicaid managed care was developed to capture soaring health care costs and to increase access to health care among the poor. Reproductive genetics creates a unique set of circumstances in the context of managed care which may also have unintended implications for low-income people and people of color. Medicaid managed care models ration the delivery of health care through gatekeepers and coordinators who decide what types of and how much health care will be available to an enrollee. These models raise serious questions about what kinds of health care problems deserve attention and care, how much care recipients should receive, and from whom they should recieve it. Decisions regarding these questions ultimately influence the health care choices people make, such as whether to keep or abort a "defective" fetus when the service may or may not be available or paid for. Thus, while the actions of gatekeepers and coordinators may not constitute intentional eugenics, the effect of these actions may be the same. As Bowman so clearly articulated in his presentation, "[s]cientific advances in genetics create a fertile ground for eugenics, because inequities in the delivery and costs of health care
Failures of Imagination: Disability and the Ethics of Selective Reproduction
Bioethics, 2015
The article addresses the problem of disability in the context of reproductive decisions based on genetic information. It poses the question of whether selective procreation should be considered as a moral obligation of prospective parents. To answer this question, a number of different ethical approaches to the problem are presented and critically analyzed: the utilitarian; Julian Savulescu’s principle of procreative beneficence; the rights-based. The main thesis of the article is that these approaches fail to provide any appealing principles on which reproductive decisions should be based. They constitute failures of imagination which may result in counter-intuitive moral judgments about both life with disability and genetic selection. A full appreciation of the ethical significance of recognition in procreative decisions leads to a more nuanced and morally satisfying view than other leading alternatives presented in the article.
This essay focuses on the use of “Reproductive Genetic Technologies” (RGT) to choose children’s traits. My argument has two parts. A first level of analysis will concern whether the current academic and media discourses that depict RGTs as a resurgence of eugenics are justified. Several examples will be given below, and preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD)1 will be used as a case study, as it is often described as a tool for embryos selection according to their genetic characteristics and consequently portrayed as a eugenic practice (King, Pennings). I will argue that such a comparison is unjustified and often dangerous, as it can obscure the real ethical issues raised by RGTs. In the second part of this essay I will suggest a new way to frame the discourse around these technologies, elaborating on Catherine Mills’ “practices of self-formation” (2011). The example of PGD to choose for deafness will be discussed. The ultimate goal of this essay is to show that by recognizing the inadequacy of the current discourse surrounding RGTs in terms of the resurgence of eugenics, we will open up space for much more interesting discussions, such as those of identity and different conceptions of human flourishing, and of societal obligations and responsibilities toward disabilities.
The Lancet, 2008
200 years after the birth of Charles Darwin, his theory of natural selection continues to inform current practice in medicine and the related discipline of bioethics or health ethics. Although darwinian theory remains fundamental to the theory and practice of both disciplines, we contend that there has been limited critical analysis of the troubling notion that the common understanding of the "naturalness" of natural selection appears to be fundamentally disconnected from the daily lived experience of the human species. Impairment and disability are not commonly understood as natural variations in human biology but rather as biology "gone wrong". We examine both historical and contemporary examples of the detrimental eff ects that uncritical acceptance and application of social darwinism have had on both the "fi t" and the "unfi t".
Evolution and Ethics of Eugenics
As eugenics is defined, it is very difficult to make a clear distinction between science (medicine, genetic engineering) and eugenics as a included field. And to set a line over which genetic engineering should not go further, according to moral, legal and religious norms. If we accept the help of genetics in finding ways to fight cancer, diabetes, or HIV, we also accept positive eugenics as they are defined now. And if we accept genetic screening, and interventions on the unborn baby, or abortion, we also implicitly accept negative eugenics. In addition, at government level, although eugenics are officially denied, it has been legalized in many countries until recently, and is still accepted and legalized, albeit in subtle forms, even these days. The section Introduction defines the term and classification modes. The section History of Eugenics follows eugenics from the ancient period, the introduction of eugenics by Francis Galton, the practice of eugenics as a state policy in various countries, and the present eugenics (liberal eugenics). I then analyze various issues raised by the Ethics of Liberal Eugenics, and I have developed a special section for the Future of Eugenics, focusing on the human genome project. Finally, in the Conclusions, I express my personal views on the current practice of eugenics.
Looking into the shadow: the eugenics argument in debates on reproductive technologies and practices
2018
Eugenics is often referred to in debates on the ethics of reproductive technologies and practices, in relation to the creation of moral boundaries between acceptable and unacceptable technologies, and acceptable and unacceptable uses of these technologies. Historians have argued that twentieth century eugenics cannot be reduced to a uniform set of practices, and that no simple lessons can be drawn from this complex history. Some authors stress the similarities between past eugenics and present reproductive technologies and practices (what I define throughout the paper as 'the continuity view') in order to condemn the latter. Others focus on the differences between past and present practices (what I define throughout the paper as 'the dis-continuity view') in order to defend contemporary reproductive technologies. In this paper, I explore the meanings of the word 'eugenics' and the relationship between its past and present uses in terms of contemporary debates on reproductive technologies and practices. I argue that moral disagreement about present technologies originate in divergent views of condemnable and justifiable features of the past.