The Value of Eugenics

The ideology of eugenics first became widely popular in the early 20th century when studies were coming out claiming they could prove certain races and classes were genetically inferior and that something could be done to stop them from procreating. At this time, the poor, lower class was reproducing at a much higher rate than the rich, upper class. The upper class citizens believed that being poor was a genetically acquired trait and that the lower class citizens would continue to pass this trait down through their generations, and, unless something was done about it, they would essentially bring down their society. Selective breeding became a popular idea and thus eugenics was born.

Eugenics is the study and practice of the selective weeding out of certain characteristics from our populace such as low intelligence and genetic illnesses and disorders. The goal of eugenics is to essentially bring about a superior race by means of breeding out the inferior parts. The study of eugenics has led to genetic testing and counseling in which they can screen for potential hereditary disorders. The question is, how far will this lead us?

Those in opposition of the practice of eugenics fear that it could become far too discriminatory and become a repeat of Hitler’s Nazi Germany. The term “designer babies” refers to the careful selection of certain desirable characteristics and the avoidance of others combined with in vitro fertilization to guarantee a healthy baby free of genetic ailments. Those against the practice of eugenics state that there is no clear definition of what is considered a major disorder and what isn’t. They are worried that there will come a time when eugenics is no longer used to avoid genetic diseases, but to provide parents with a way of selecting the exact traits they want in a child.

Another issue some see with the progression of eugenics is the danger that genetic testing poses to the mother and the fetus. Currently, the procedure to test for Down’s Syndrome is quite invasive and increases the chance of a miscarriage. Also, genetic tests can be wrong. A woman named Nancy Seeger had a family history of breast and ovarian cancer and went through genetic testing to see if she carried the bad gene as well. Only after she had had her ovaries removed was it revealed that the testing had made a mistake; she did not carry the gene after all. “The original lab apologized for any anxiety or stress this situation may have caused and refunded her $350 fee. But Seeger could not have children. (Ransom)” This exemplifies the adverse possibilities of genetic testing.

All of these points are quite valid. Right now there are no measures in place to ensure that only degenerative characteristics are tested for and potentially avoided or aborted. There is nothing that prevents anyone from choosing to abort a pregnancy because of gender, hair color, height, etc. Hank Greely believes such terminations would be unlikely, but “it's a big country and somebody will do it. (Greely)” There is a point where eugenics will be no longer beneficial, but merely choosey and discriminatory.

When a woman consents to genetic testing of her fetus, there is a higher rate of miscarriage, simply because the procedure is so invasive. To test for Down’s Syndrome, a small needle is inserted into the amniotic sac and some of the amniotic fluid surrounding the fetus is drawn out for testing. A spontaneous miscarriage will result from the procedure 1-2% of the time (Women’s Health). In many of these miscarriages, it is likely the fetus did not even carry the gene responsible for Down’s Syndrome. It is a shame they had to die during a test they may not have needed.

While I agree that genetic testing has the potential to be taken too far, it also presents many advantages. If we are able to, as a society, eradicate certain degenerative genetic disorders, I believe we would be a better society for it. A number of genetic disorders give the newborn a life expectancy of only a few months. Disorders like Trisomy 13 and Trisomy 18 (these names just mean there are three of these chromosomes rather than the regular two) are so degenerative that babies born with them rarely live to be a month old. Tay-Sachs is especially severe. “At a few months of age the baby will gradually stop smiling, crawling or turning over. Eventually they lose their ability to grasp or reach out and become blind and paralyzed. Death occurs by age 5. (Children’s Hospital of Wisconsin)” This brings me to my main point: how high-quality of a life do these babies have while alive? As morbid as it is, if they only live for one month after their birth, that means they are at least moderately unhealthy/in the process of dying for that month. How do we know that they are not in pain for those 30 days? They could very well be in some sort of discomfort and we have no way of knowing whether or not they are enjoying their life. Is it selfish to put them through this ordeal when there is prenatal screening available?

I believe this is one issue that will always face ethical dilemmas. However, I do feel that a compromise can be found. Certain measures need to be put in place to prevent the practice of eugenics from becoming overly selective. Physical characteristics are not a danger to a child’s health, therefore we should have no need to terminate a pregnancy simply because the fetus may be born with red hair, olive skin, or green eyes. I am of the opinion that our society would be better off without certain hereditary disorders. However, I believe the only disorders that should be screened against are those that could greatly affect the child’s quality of life negatively.

Works Cited

Agar, Nicholas. Designer Babies: Ethical Considerations. American Institute of Biological
Sciences, 2006. Web. 21 May 2010. < http://www.actionbioscience.org/biotech/agar.html>.

“Down’s Syndrome.” Womens-Health.co.uk. 2010, Web. 22 May 2010.
< http://www.womens-health.co.uk/downs.asp>.

“Explosion of Prenatal Genetic Testing on Horizon, Greely Says.” University of Virginia. 2010,
Web. 22 May 2010. < http://www.virginia.edu/uvatoday/newsRelease.php?id=11257>.

“Genetics Disorders.” Children’s Hospital of Wisconsin. 2010, Web. 30 May 2010.
< http://www.chw.org/display/PPF/DocID/34306/Nav/1/router.asp>.

Ransom, Steven. “Cancer Misdiagnosis.” CTM. 2003, Web. 22 May 2010.
<http://campaignfortruth.com/Eclub/060206/CTM-cancermisdiagnosis.htm>.