Eugenics

Readings late in the course bring me to the discussion of eugenics. To satisfactorily look at eugenics without a knee-jerk reaction, we must first look at what eugenics really is. It is a word that usually brings thoughts of Nazis. In reality, Webster defines eugenics as:

A science that deals with the improvement (as by control of human mating) of hereditary qualities of a race or breed.

However, with new advancements in bioengineering, control of breeding no longer seems to be the only way to achieve eugenics. With new embryo screening (called preimplantation genetic diagnosis) techniques, scientists can often see into the future of the child long before it's brought to term. With this ability comes great power and no small amount of risk. With this new ability, scientists can tell things like the gender of an embryo.

Eugenics is now being segregated into two types. The authoritarian type, that is associated with Hitler and the Nazis and the new, kindler gentler "liberal eugenics". But what is "liberal eugenics"? In his paper supporting Habermas' view of eugenics, Prusak writes that liberal eugenics "would be distinguished from an old-style, authoritarian eugenics by a great measure of state neutrality, with parents enjoying a largely free hand in 'the choice of the goals of character modifying interventions'" In other words, the government takes a hands-off approach, and parents, or the free market dictate what sort of eugenics are accepted. But is the market really any better equipped to make decisions about eugenics than the government? I think the reason the government might wish to steer clear is a reaction to Nazi policies, and the new distinction between the two types a derivative of this aversion.

A couple of examples to demonstrate the huge risk, and, in my opinion, extremely slippery slope involved in eugenics, regardless of who is behind the choices. First, and this a fairly common one, consider a PGD test reveals that a child is going to be deaf for life if brought to term. The parents are given the choice to select an embryo that won't be deaf. But what if that were to become the next Beethoven?

Another example, which is probably more realistic as well as a bit more insidious, what if a PGD test revealed a child who would become homosexual? What would the parents choose to do? Would they choose another embryo to implant (PGD only works with in vitro fertilization)? I purport that they probably would, even if only to save the child the difficulties of living with discrimination. This, of course, brings us right back to deciding what traits are good and which traits are to be avoided.

It is terribly difficult to arrive at any conclusive opinion on this issue. If the technique involved the selective abortions that were required to do anything with the results of prenatal diagnosis, it would be easier to have a visceral gut reaction against it. But with my continually waffling opinion on life stages, that easy avenue is lost. So I am left considering the rights of parents to select an embryo that would be more likely to be free of disease to the rights of the an eventual child to self-determination. Once again, no easy answers.