ETHICS: The New Eugenics Movement Essay, Research Paper
Because of the new wave of genetic technology there has been a strengthening in the
eugenics movement. Although the ideals still generally remain the same, they have
morphed into a new movement that seems more convincing for many people who
live in this new century. Terms such as ?positive? and ?negative? eugenics are used to
try to differenciate between old and new ideas, but it seems that the bottom line still
remains the same and that raises many ethical questions. Things like prenatal
screening and genetic engeneering are strengthening and making eugenics a strong
force in the new millenium. So we must ask ourselves, what is it that makes someone
superior? Is it strength, intelligence, work ethic, good looks? What makes one life
more worth living?
When many people hear the word ?eugenics? they often think back to the
holocaust as the main example, but sadly enough, eugenics is something that has
been more widely practised and becoming more and more embedded in our society.
Even going as far back as Ancient Greece, it was decided when a child was only a
week old if they could be a good warrior. If the inspector felt that the infant was not
worthy, then he was left at the side of a mountain to be fed to the wild animals. More
recently, during the 1960s and 1970s, thousands of poor black women were
coercively sterilized by means of governmentally funded programs. Women were
threatened with termination of welfare or denial of medical services if they did not
?consent? to the procedures. So it was no surprise that when the birth control pill
was introduced to black women in the 1960s that it was seen as a form of racial
cleansing. Many claim that so many black women were sterilized without consent
and for no medical reason that it was called the Mississippi appendectomy. Teaching
hospitals in the northern American states also performed unnecessary
hysterectomies on poor black women as practise for their medical residents. This
practise was believed to have started on the basis that there were many black women
on government support and this would save the country a lot of money.
The use of prenatal testing is argued to be a form of eugenics in itself. If a
mother is aware that her child will have down?s syndrome when it is born then they
have the option of aborting that child so it will not have to live a painful, short life.
You could say that this is not being unfair and it is the ethical thing to do, but what if
you are only relying on a probability? If a mother finds out that her child has a
twenty-five per cent chance of her child having down?s syndrome, then is it ethical
for her to abort the fetus on that chance? Many would still say yes. How far can you
go? Is there a cut-off line? The fact is that the line will not just be drawn at down?s
syndrome, it could be any physical abnormality. And it could be less than twenty-five
per cent, it could be ten, or merely five. Bob Edwards, the scientist who created
Britain?s first test-tube baby states that, ?soon it will be a sin of parents to have a
child that carries the heavy burden of genetic disease?. He believes that with current
and growing technology, that people should use prenatal screening and fertility
treatment as a tool for ?social engineering?. And maybe they should, but the problem
with this is that the choice will soon be eliminated. It will be considered a ?sin? to
literally let nature take it?s course and even the refusal of prenatal screening can be
seen as unethical.
It might be easier to decide when talking about genetic diseases, but when you
have the technology of genetic engineering, what is stopping you from changing
merely natural features of a child. Many people find moles and freckles to be quite
the blemish to appearance and seeing that apperance is held very highly in our
society, it is not hard to believe that if parents had the choice to change ?unwanted?
physical attributes, they would. It is also not hard to imagine that if they would go
that far, then why wouldn?t they choose sexual preference or even gender or musical
talent or athletic ability. And according to the organization Future Generations2,
there is absolutely nothing wrong with taking evolution into our own hands. Their
main argument is that human intelligence is hereditary and that a high intelligence
quotient is the main factor in deciding who is superior than others. They also state
that intelligence is what progresses a society, but people with higher IQs have less
children, therefore, society is gradually deteriorating. They also claim that people
from ?inferior? or so-called ?less-intelligent? countries continue to immigrate to
countries like Canada and America, the so-called ?superior? countries because we
are more civilized and civilization is based soley on intelligence.
This organization has many ungrounded claims and theories that sometimes if
compared, comtraidct themselves and many of their arguments have little or no
evidence to support them. There is still not much proof that states that human
intelligence is inherited and above that, they are basing intelligence on IQ testing.
Many people would argue that IQ testing is not accurate because it is not universal,
and that many tests are biased. It is also proven according to IQ testing that a
person?s intelligence level can actually increase and that proves in itself that the
tests are illigitimate. To base whether or not someone should be sterilized according
to IQ tests is definately quite dangerous. Also, claiming that intelligence is the only
thing that progresses society is quite a statement. First you have to ask, what type of
intelligence? Is it conventional thinking, work ethic, linear or lateral thinking? It is
difficult to say that a civilization can be built just by relying on a room full of
thinkers. It takes a variety of skills and strengths as well as weaknesses to build a
strong society, because it is not only progress from good ideas, but progress from
bad ideas so as to learn from fault. Future Generations also claim that people with
?lower IQs? (or in translation: in poor countries) are having more children than r
countries (or people with ?higher IQs?). This statement is unjustified for several
reasons. First, it is incorrect to say that people who have more money are more
intelligent because it is obvious that this is untrue. Also, it is not because they are
?stupider? that they are having more children, it is because of the needs of that
society. Having one more child in Ethiopia could mean the survival of it?s whole
family because of the increase in income. Also, to say that those countries are less
civilized is also false and in many cases, it is because of our so-called civilized
countries that theirs are in shambles.
So who should be sterilized? That is the question that comes to mind when
thinking about the major players in the eugenics movement. Future Generations, as I
stated before, soley bases this on intelligence, but to them only the white, rich and
unblemished are intelligent. Marian Van Court, the founder of this organization,
attempted to justify the sterilization of Swedish women from the 1930s to the
1970s. They claimed that for many reasons, this practise was justified and not only
in the interests of the human gene pool but in the interests of the women. Not only
does she state that Sweden is a more civilized society due to this practise she uses
their success and reputation as a progressive society to support her argument. Court
states that it was in the interest of the women because if they were raped in their
mental hospitals, they would have their babies taken away. Court also goes on to say
that pregnancy and child birth in itself is a burden that should be lifted from women
and that they would benefit from not ?being so fat?.
One of the mental illnesses she speaks about is Schizophrenia. To sterilize
someone on the grounds that they have an illness such as Schizophrenia or Sz is
unjustifiable. Not only is Sz treatable, it is still only a theory that it is a genetic
illness and even so, the chances of the child getting the disease from the mother is
very slim. Also, if it is the problem of rape, then why should a woman have her right
to bear children taken away from her based on the fact that someone is going to rape
and impregnate her. That is a problem in itself that deserves its own solution without
comprimising the rights of the victim. That just makes sense.
Another leader in the eugenics movement is Conscious Evolution3. They are
raising the idea of positive and negative eugenics. Positive eugenics is the idea that
people with the most desirable traits will form their own society and breed within
their own group. This is a way that they feel they can filter out the gene pool and not
cause harm to those with undesirable traits. The term negative eugenics is applied to
sterilization of people who have undesirable traits. This in a way sounds more
humane than other beliefs, but it still follows the main ideals and the fact is, in our
world, the amount of perfect people is so small that in effect, their gene pool would
become polluted with their own genetic disorders and imbreeding. Whether or not
you would be sterilizing the ?inferior? people, is it still not detremental to separate
into two societies, one that would be basically waiting to die out? The fact is that
eugenics is always negative. When you are putting a value on human life, you always
have someone on the other end that would be considered a waste. According to these
organizations, they are a waste of welfare, social programs, housing, food, space,
police and they over populate and consume what could be used for the more
deserving.
The main question is, who is more worthy? It is not who is more beneficial to
society, it is who does not fit the status quo. It sounds rediculous to say that this is
based on looks or athletics or even eye colour, but is it really going that far? It is
based on skin colour, so why is it so hard to believe that people will not be sterilized
for simply having only four toes or even brown hair. Many of the followers in the
movement get attracted to the simplicity of the answers to such difficult questions.
Instead of questioning the faults of society which are deeply complex and difficult to
weave through, they look towards a scapegoat that stands in the way of their Utopia
and although the prospect of eliminating genetic illnesses is quite a tempting one,
the truth is that not only will the line between desireable and undesireable traits
extend further and further and further as time passes, the choice to let nature take it?s
course will be eliminated and it will soon be unethical to even refuse prenatal
screening.
Although many of the organizations cringe when you compare their ideals to
Hitler, the truth is that the parallels are still there the only difference is that todays
technology gives even more promise to the movement. Although things like prenatal
screening and genetic engineering and even birth control are not seen as tools of
eugenics, they very well could be. This question has been brought up before, but
deserves reiteration: what would happen if Hitler got his hands on today?s genetic
technology? The thought alone can scare anyone into seeing that this practise can
have unimaginable, detrimental effects.
In closing, the question of undesirable traits should still be addressed. My mother
told me a story about a man who each day carried water from the river back to his
house. He carried two pots, one in good shape but the other had a crack in its middle
so by the time that he got back to the house, the cracked pot was only half full. The
cracked pot felt sad that he made the man do more work and he couldn?t make him as
happy as the full pot, so on the way back from the river one day, the man pointed out
a row of beautiful flowers to the cracked pot to cheer him up. The pot thought that
the flowers were beautiful but he was still sad. The slave told the pot that he planted
those flowers and every time he came back from the river, the water that leaked from
the pot nourished the flowers and allowed them to grow where they wouldn?t have
been able to before. The man was able to pick the flowers to bring more beauty and
happiness to his house.