Pushing Eugenics as "Smart Science"
Bioethicist Jacob M. Appel, who has written that mentally ill people should not be denied the "opportunities" to commit assisted suicide, now pushes mandatory pre-implatation genetic testing in all IVF fertility treatments in order to weed out the unfit (my term) and for whom care would be expensive. But don't call it eugenics! From his column:
The most obvious advantage of mandatory screening is that it will reduce the long-term suffering of the children who are spared disease. At the same time, preventing future cancers will certainly save tax dollars. These savings could be redirected toward researching new therapies and providing quality care for current patients. The money might also help to defer the enormous public costs of fertility therapy, coverage for which a growing number of states now require of private insurance plans...While similar screening cannot realistically be imposed upon individuals conceiving "the old-fashioned way," for obvious reasons of logistics and privacy, these invasive aspects of screening do not apply to IVF.Such crass utilitarian utopianism is precisely what eugenics was all about. And its message is insidious: Those with expensive disabling conditions and diseases are a burden on society and you should not be allowed to be born--as a favor to you!
Opponents of mandatory screening will likely point out that such a rule significantly limits the reproductive autonomy of parents. This is certainly true. However, Western societies have long acknowledged that parental authority cannot undermine the medical interests of a child. Jehovah's Witnesses may not deny their children blood transfusions; Christian Scientists cannot substitute prayer for life-saving antibiotics. As United States Supreme Court Justice Wiley Rutledge wrote in the landmark case of Prince v. Massachusetts, "Parents may be free to become martyrs themselves, but it does not follow that they are free, in identical circumstances, to make martyrs of their children."...
Then Appel makes a huge gaffe:
The fear expressed by many opponents of genetic screening, both elective and mandatory, is that our civilization is sliding down a slope toward selecting embryos for their skin complexion or their eye-color.No, the won't do that in the future. No way. They are doing it today!
If IVF can be coupled with mandatory PGD, then every pregnancy can be coupled with mandatory prenatal testing to be sure we weed out all children who are not optimal to the new eugenicists via abortion. Indeed, such mandatory pre natal testing is already being pushed.
And if all else fails, there is always infanticide, as is happening in the Netherlands, with support from some mainstream bioethicists.
Appel is a mainstream bioethicist who is a university professor and has been published in the Hastings Center Report with his call for assisted suicide for the mentally ill. And some bioethicists wonder why I am so worried about the direction in which the bioethics movement seems intent on taking us.
HT: Alice Hatch
Labels: New Eugenics. Mandatory Genetic Testing. Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis. IVF. Jacob M. Appel.


15 Comments:
Would the testing require that parents not implant embryos with those issues, or would they still be free to implant them if they chose?
SAFEpres, the implication of your statement is that it's no big deal because it doesn't affect the ability of parents to make their own decision. There are three reasons why that "loophole" doesn't matter:
1. Cost (why should the procedure be paid for if the parents are going to ignore the data?)
2. Health risks (every procedure has risks and damaging the embryos is a real one. Why take that risk if the results are going to be ignored?)
3. Pragmatics (he's not suggesting this so that people can ignore the results. It's so that people can at a minimum be pressured (leading down the road to forcibly by law) into following the suggestions of people like him in regards to who should or should not be born).
Safe Pres -
Most likely the parents wouldn't be *denied* the right to implant those embroys, since the last thing a doctor wants to do is accidentally suggest, "Oh, your baby will be deaf, so we don't recommend you implant that one," only to find out that the patient's husband is hearing impaired and she and her hubby sue the clinic for discrimination.
As has happened, I believe. Correct me if I'm wrong, Wesley.
So, the clinic's policy is, let the parent choose whether to implant or not. But then there are those oh so subtle techniques that people use to suggest that you'd be better off if you did things differently.
After all, the consensus these days, particularly from some of my friends and co-workers, is that it's somehow "selfish" to bring a child into the world who is anything less than perfect. Have a pregnant co-worker, 38, who's got issues with the whole, "How can you think about keeping it if it has Down's Syndrome? That's so selfish of you."
Very odd thinking. So you see, nobody will ever come out and push for eugenics in plain language, but it will always be there, hovering in the background, right along with those lines like, "You have such a pretty face, if only you'd lose some weight," or, "Well, it's your life, but I just don't think it's right to marry outside your race."
It'll be worse coming from health care professionals, though, because everybody's predisposed to believing that doctors know best. I keep pointing out to people that some hospitals recommend you write on your body in magic marker if you're having an operation so the surgeons remember which side to operate on.
I'm beginning to think I'm going to dislike anything with this neologistic use of the word "smart" attached to it. "Smart" growth, for example. And now "smart" science. It's just a transparent ploy, an attempt to make anybody who disagrees with you sound like he must be against something good.
"Smart science." Now there's an oxymoron. In fact western science is by its very nature deliberately and unavoidably stupid in its processes and attitude.
Oh, no-I wasn't saying it wasn't a big deal-I just wanted clarification on the situation. I think it's awful, as has been clearly established elsewhere on this blog.
As a victim of many of my own uncaught typos, I think you should know that the word "Pusing" in the title is missing an "h."
Stephen Drake -
But it sounds so much more FUN without the H! I cannot say what I'm thinking because Wesley would first delete my comment and then scold me, as he rightly should, but hey, I can think it *very* loudly, can't I?
Stephen: Thanks. I wish the spell check worked on the titles!
Hi Stephen!
Appel's illogic is particularly vicious. Look at this bizarre sentence:
"The most obvious advantage of mandatory screening is that it will reduce the long-term suffering of the children who are spared disease."
Now, if one read that without knowing what he was talking about, one would assume that he is talking about a situation where the children _continue to exist_ but are "spared disease." Right? I mean, that's what he says: "Reduce the long-term suffering of the children who are spared disease." But what he's actually talking about is making sure that embryos likely to have disease are thrown into the bio-incinerator and hence cease to exist at all! This is like reducing the long-term suffering of a man with a headache and "sparing" him the headache by cutting his head off. Or more: It's like cutting his head off *before he ever gets the headache* because you've checked out his genes and decided he's _likely_ to get a headache. Then calling it "reducing the long-term suffering of the man spared a headache." It's absolutely nuts. So, too, is the analogy to people who try to refuse blood transfusions for their children. Here is a crazy analogy between refusing to let your child be treated, on the one hand, and refusing to let your child be destroyed, on the other.
One wonders if the guy even thinks of these objections. And let one even suppose, for the sake of the argument (which I would never in a million years really grant) that the embryos culled were not human persons. Even so, there is no analogy to _treating_ someone for a disease or to _sparing_ someone from long-term suffering from a disease, because in that case, too, there is no "someone" left to treat or to spare.
This is wildly creepy. If this sort of reasoning were to take hold, we would indeed have people advocating forced abortions for women whose children were identified with Down's Syndrome, analogizing this with giving the child a blood transfusion!
When faced with suffering people, what we want to do is get rid of the "suffering" part and NOT get rid of the "people" part.
I don't think bioethics is just leading us in a direction; I think it's endorsing a direction it was expressly and intentionally created to endorse and facilitate.
This business of being "spared" disease -- Life is a gift, not a picnic. Having come close to losing life and limb more than once and gone through all sorts of things no one would want to go through, I can tell you it's not worth not being alive to avoid them. I've also observed that sometimes disease or disability can have beneficial effect on soul, character, and achievement. These guys are talking about building perfect houses that nobody lives in.
Readers should NOT be misled by the author's comment that:
"Jehovah's Witnesses may not deny their children blood transfusions; ... ."
In fact, Jehovah's Witness Parents continue to do everything possible to deny life-saving blood transfusions to their dying children.
The following website summarizes over 900 court cases and lawsuits affecting children of Jehovah's Witness Parents, including over 400 cases where the JW Parents refused to consent to life-saving blood transfusions for their dying children:
DIVORCE, BLOOD TRANSFUSIONS, AND OTHER LEGAL ISSUES AFFECTING CHILDREN OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES
http://jwdivorces.bravehost.com
Readers should NOT be misled by the author's comment that:
"Jehovah's Witnesses may not deny their children blood transfusions; ... ."
In fact, Jehovah's Witness Parents continue to do everything possible to deny life-saving blood transfusions to their dying children.
The following website summarizes over 900 court cases and lawsuits affecting children of Jehovah's Witness Parents, including over 400 cases where the JW Parents refused to consent to life-saving blood transfusions for their dying children:
DIVORCE, BLOOD TRANSFUSIONS, AND OTHER LEGAL ISSUES AFFECTING CHILDREN OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES
http://jwdivorces.bravehost.com
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home