Ellen Goodman's 1980 IVF Predictions
The discussion about selecting embryos to have a disability reminded me of a column I have in my files written by the syndicated columnist Ellen Goodman in January 1980. It is a good reminder of how if we are willing to look, we can see the slippery slope literally slip-sliding away.
In "Making Babies," which ran in the Austin American Statesman on 1/17/80 (no link available), Goodman urged that IVF be permitted to proceed unhindered. "To some," she wrote, "it is just a small medical step, another helping tool which we will soon accept the way we now accept the once-diabolical diaphragm. To others, it is a step down the long road to a Brave New World, in which Aldous Huxley foresaw a human hatchery and fertilizing center in the middle of London."
Both were right, in my view. And here is the slippery slope part: "A fear of many protesting the opening of this clinic is that doctors will fertilize myriad eggs and discard the 'extras' and the abnormal, as if they were no more meaningful than a dish of caviar. But this fear seems largely unwarranted."
Actually, as demonstrated in recent headlines, that is precisely what happened.
After some discussion, she concludes: "Now, we have to watch the development of this technology--willing to see it grow in the right direction, and ready to say no."
Except we never say no, at least not no to something that can be done in the moment. Instead, our public intellectuals argue that if it is okay to perform IVF, why isn't it also okay to select embryos? And if we can select embryos, why not design progeny? And if we can use IVF, why not reproductive cloning once it is safe?
After I ran across this column, Goodman wrote a column in favor of ESCR. I e-mailed her pointing out that she was supporting a policy that treats embryos as if they were no more meaningful than a dish of caviar, and asked her when she would finally say no.
She wrote back, "My lines have changed."
Indeed. And thus the blithe assurances that we will know where and when to stop are just platitudes. The Establishment has no intention of ever, finally saying no.
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 9:18 AM
9 Comments
9 Comments:
Wasn't that from "Consumer's Guide to a Brave New World"?
I quoted it in Consumer's Guide. Thanks for having read the book!
You'd think one's ethics wouldn't change so dramatically given the rapid pace of technology. One would assume that the faster we move ahead the more we'd want to slow things down and double-check them before plowing on to the next big advancement.
T E Fine - good point.
Wesley - yes, I have a few questions about your book. But I'm waiting for the right thread.
T E - ps, you can reach me at steveroyale@yahoo.com.
I check it periodically, but it's mainly for collecting spam.
My belief is that sentences like the one in which she says we have to be "ready to say no" are just pabulum for the masses. No is never said to what can be done today, only tomorrow, and like the old saying goes, tomorrow never comes.
(I don't think I've posted this before. Sorry if it's a repeat of something I've already said.) About twelve years ago, I embarked for my own entertainment on reading backwards through Reader's Digest. I got back to about 1968 before stopping. They were "avant garde" in several ways, and one of the articles in there (circa 1975 or something like that, if I remember right) was about in vitro fertilization. Then, the claim was (try not to laugh too hard) that this would be restricted only to one egg at a time from a married woman united to sperm from her own husband. The "Oh, no, we'd never do that" thing at that time was the idea of uniting eggs and sperm from people not married to each other--now, of course, entirely commonplace. Of course, I knew that even by the time I was reading this, circa 1993, and it was a head-shaking experience to see them saying this. But looking back, I can see that there was an air of insincerity about it.
In fact, I tend to think that when perfectly plausible worries are brushed off, that's probably a sign that the brusher-offer wouldn't mind if those things _did_ happen. Hence his willingness to hand out pablum to the masses, as Wesley says. He'll murmur, "Oh, no, nothing of the sort," just to calm people down, and if he turns out to be totally wrong, as he usually does, he doesn't care anyway.
Lydia: You nailed it!
By the way, Italy has regs that only permit at the most 3 (I think) embryos to be created at a time for IVF, and every embryo that takes must be implanted.
You think our anything goes crowd would accept that? I don't. Thar's gold in them thar excess embryos!
No is never said to what can be done today, only tomorrow, and like the old saying goes, tomorrow never comes.
Well, one notable exception is the majority of people in all the states that have said "No" to same-sex marriage. Of course, the media has ensured that there is very little substance to what they are actually saying "no" to, but my feeling is that all of these people understand marriage to be a right to conceive together, and they are saying "No" to unnatural, unmarried conception. These are the same people who were being reassured by Reader's Digest that IVF would only join a married couple's egg and sperm, and these same people still have the same understanding of marriage and conception rights that they had back in 1975, and they still vote.
I think we can rejoin these debates and harness the energized majority that is already saying "No" to same-sex marriage to get them to say "No" to genetic engineering, though I don't know exactly how this would be done. I just know we shouldn't be seperating the marriage and conception issues.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home