The Mother of a Down's Child Takes on the New Eugenics
This is a great column by lawyer Elizabeth R. Schiltz, published in Business Week. The mother of a Down's child, Schiltz blisters the pressure people like her are put under to abort Down syndrome babies:
"I've come to realize that many in the scientific and medical community view me as grossly irresponsible. Indeed, in the words of Bob Edwards, the scientist who facilitated the birth of England's first test-tube baby, I am a 'sinner.' A recent book even branded me a 'genetic outlaw.' My transgression? I am one of the dwindling number of women who receive a prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome and choose not to terminate our pregnancies."
This is indeed eugenics. Reading Schiltz' article reminded me of a speech I made to some medical school students a few years ago. It was a critique of personhood theory and the importance of recognizing the intrinsic value of human life simply and merely because it is human.
After the speech, a student approached me and said that he was engaged in genetic counseling. What is he supposed to do, he asked, when a woman presents with a diagnosis that she is carrying a Down's baby. I suggested that perhaps a true counseling would include letting the prospective parents of a Down's baby meet people who are actually living that experience. They could tell of the great joy and love--as well as the very real difficulties--that come from parenting a developmentally disabled child. That would certainly be better than the pressure to abort that seems to be on the increase in such cases.
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 9:32 AM
11 Comments
11 Comments:
Excellent piece. The writer spells out what this is all about.
Down's kids are akin to cancer cells...Really, Winston Jen, this is beyond the pale even for you.
But, it is in keeping with euthanasia consciousness, which has always been closely associated with pernicious eugenics thought.
Winston, you really need to be around some disabled people instead of spouting bigoted statements about how some people are more equal than others.
That's the root of every kind of bigotry there is, and prejudice against the disabled is no different.
You have a very twisted idea of what constitutes "freedom," which isn't "freedom" at all, especially when we are talking about people who are subjected to the whims of guardians. That's what is ALWAYS missing when the right-to-die advocates spew their rhetoric.
Human life refers to beings, organisms, etc., not mere cells.
Personhood theory requires humans to "earn" their moral value, based on criteria that those with the political power to decide, determine matter. This means an end to universal human rights since the so-called human non person becomes available for harvesting, among other forms of exploitation and oppression.
Winston: "So, do cancer cells have value simply because they have human DNA?"
Why would they, when unlike an embryo, they are not a developing human being? Nice rhetorical ploy, but completely illogical.
"I'm not saying that all Downs Syndrome babies should be aborted, but if the parents have an increased risk of producing a child with such defects, they should at least receive an incentive not to reproduce."
In that case, you're essentially going to have to dissuade everyone over 35 from having children. Down Syndrome is a spontaneous condition that can occur with any conception (although the chances increase with age). And by the way: Who gets to decide what conditions are targeted with disincentives? What kind of attitude towards those born with the conditions anyway will such disincentives foster?
"I was criticizing the "being human has value" argument, because human cells do not have inherent value. Human beings, or people, have inherent value."
And as I implied above, a human embryo is not merely a collection of generic human cells, but rather a nascent human being. A 4-day-old embryo is exactly what you and I and everyone reading this was at 4 days after conception.
Not going to keep rearguing the same points with you. For my views on personhood theory, I suggest people see some of my articles and my book, CULTURE OF DEATH. As to Winston Jen's last point, perhaps you should speak with people (like me) who have cared for folk who are developmentally disabled: They are some of the best human beings I have ever met.
Irrelevant. I would have rather been born looking like Robert Redford, but so what? Nobody would prefer to have a Down's baby. But that does not mean they are not equal to the rest of us and utterly worthy of being loved and contributing to the fabric of life.
Winston: "I don't think personhood has to be "earned" by moral criteria, but an objective one - consciousness."
But how do you "objectively" detect consciousness? It's nowhere as easy as you seem to assume. What comprises it? When does it start? etc.
"Embryos are indeed developing human beings, but the majority of implanted fertilized eggs naturally miscarry without the mother knowing that she was pregnant."
Which is equivalent to claiming that because people eventually die anyway, it's OK to murder them.
"Given the choice, though, would you rather be born with or without Downs' Syndrome?"
Wrong question, Winston. It's actually this: Would you rather have Downs Syndrome, or be dead?
Winston Jen, the organism is organized. The embryo and the fetus are organized and carrying out the functions necessary for and consistent with the human being, at that age.
If I'm more conscious than you, if my IQ is higher, does that make me more of a person than you?
Degrees of personhood are just as logical as "non-person humans."
Moreover, if we can distinguish between the human person and non person, why not between and among gradations of persons? The principle has been established, after all, that characteristics define moral worth, rather than mere humanhood. So, why not have some persons worth more than others?
Some are already proposing this: See James Hughes idea of "mature person," in his transhumanist manifesto, Citzen Cyborg.
Me: ""But how do you "objectively" detect consciousness? It's nowhere as easy as you seem to assume. What comprises it? When does it start? etc."
Winston: "Brain waves"
It's not that simple, Winston. What kind of brain waves do you mean? Any at all, regardless of type or source? Depending on how you define it, you could claim that the family dog has a consciousness and is therefore a person, while a human being who was comatose for a month and woke up again was a person, then wasn't, then became one again. And then there's the issue of whether you mean simple awareness or mind. Brain waves and "consciousness" may indeed be a decent guideline, but nonchalantly labeling it "objective" and assuming it's non-problematic is naive.
Winston: "A fetus does not become a person until brain waves are present at around the 6th month of pregnancy."
So you oppose abortion after the second trimester?
Me: "Which is equivalent to claiming that because people eventually die anyway, it's OK to murder them."
Winston: "No, because fertilized eggs are not persons."
You completely missed my point. Your original statement was this: "Embryos are indeed developing human beings, but the majority of implanted fertilized eggs naturally miscarry without the mother knowing that she was pregnant." In other words, because many embryos die naturally, what's the big deal about creating and destroying some? But of course this fact is entirely irrelevant, just as the fact that people die is irrelevant to the question of the morality of murder.
"I suppose I would have to experience Downs Syndrome first before I could determine whether or not I preferred non-existence to living with Downs Syndrome."
I wasn't asking for your personal opinion on the matter, Winston. I was pointing out that what's at stake in these questions is not a choice between having a condition or not, but rather between having a condition or death. Even though people like to describe in-vitro genetic screening as "preventing children from having illnesses," they are anything but medical therapies to heal children who otherwise would be sickly. The sickly children are still created in nascent form and have their illness for the entire time they are allowed to exist, but they are destroyed in vitro. In other words, the apparently healthy children ultimately born from these procedures are not sickly children healed of their afflictions, but simply those who made it through the gauntlet. Thus, the choice is illness or death.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home