Ethical Implication of Eugenics

Introduction

This paper attempts to unfold, analyze, interpret, and to give a critique to the ancient and today’s philosophy of Eugenics. Eugenics has been a matter of debate since the time it was introduced and coined by Francis Galton up to Hitler’s regime, and world war II. Eugenics is practiced to better human society according to the arguments of those who propagate it. The question is, Is Eugenics good by itself for human race? What are the ethical implications of Eugenics? Can we condemn Eugenics and throw it away? Is there any goodness in Eugenics? These and other questions have been answered this paper. The paper comprises of a theory on eugenics, conclusion, and bibliography. The theory consists of various sections which have been orderly arranged to render a logical flow of what eugenics implies. The sections include; Historical Background of Eugenics, Eugenics Ethical Implications, Types of Eugenics which involves Positive and Negative Eugenics, and Ethical Arguments Against Eugenics.

1.1 Historical Background of Eugenics

Historically, Eugenics gets its ancestries from the Ancient philosopher Plato who believed that human reproduction must be controlled by the state. He aimed at eliminating the undesirable traits and upholding the desirable ones in the state. He wanted it to be done through analyzing the qualities of each person quantitatively so that the one with high number of desirable traits would be allowed to procreate with another one with high number of desirable traits. This case would lead to a predictable results and improvement of human race. He also discouraged men and women of inferior characters from reproducing. However, after some investigations, he realized that Eugenics could not produce traits that he wanted because “golden soul” could still produce “a bronze soul” [1] and vice versa

1.1.1 Eugenics in the United Kingdoms

It was until 1883, when Francis Galton, an English mathematician and Charles Darwin’s cousin who coined the term eugenics to a “well born” or “race betterment.” His main concern was to revive the declined genius society. He was convinced that intelligence was an inherited trait and thus, the upper class contained the most intelligent and composed people. Galton was also triggered by his discovery that the poor had a higher birth rate as compared to the rich. He therefore explained how eugenics could solve that problem sufficiently.[2] For him Eugenics is a science that deals with all influences that improve and develop the inborn qualities of human race for it is better to be healthy than sick, vigorous than weak, well fitted than ill fitted in one’s life. Galton concluded that to better society, good genetic makeup must be put into place. Unfortunately, Galton’s plans to improve human race through selective breeding never came into success in Britain, but rather took roots in other countries.[3]

1.1.2 Eugenics Movement in United States of America

Eugenics became a movement in United States of America in the late 19^th Century. The eugenicists aimed at discontinuing the transmission of undesirable traits from one generation to the another. In response, Eugenics study was subsidized by some U. S leaders and private sectors and in 1911, the Eugenics Records Office (ERO) was established in New York. Through the studies that were put into place by the ERO, it was discovered that people deemed to be unfit, more come from families that were poor, low in social standing, immigrants, and minority in the society. It was also purported that the undesirable traits from the above-mentioned families such as pauperism, were due to genetic makeup rather than lack of resources. The committees were set up to render solutions to the problem of the increased number of “undesirable” traits in the U.S population. As a solution, strict immigration rules were indorsed, but the most threatening solution was a plan to sterilize the “unfit” individuals to prevent them from passing on their negative traits. In 20^th century, it was indicated that a total number of 33 states had sterilization programs in place. In the beginning, sterilization efforts targeted mentally ill people exclusively. The process of sterilization was later directed to alcoholism, criminality chronic poverty, blindness, deafness, feeble-mindedness, and promiscuity.[4]

It was also extended to African American women during other medical procedures without their consent. Most people subjected to these sterilizations had no choice simply because the program was run by the government and thus there were no opportunities to escape the process.  Later, it was discovered that around 65,000 of Americans were sterilized during this time period. The eugenics movement in the U.S.A slowly lost flavour over time and in the beginning of World War II, it faded out. It also extremely practiced during the horrors of Nazi regime in German where Hitler used the eugenic principles to justify his atrocities. After that, eugenics lost all credibility as a field of study or even an ideal that should be pursued.[5]

1.2 Ethical Implication of Eugenics

Eugenics is defined as an attempt to improve human gene pool. In the modern time, Eugenics meets a lot of opposition especially in terms of its ultimate aim and procedure. Some people consider it as an authoritarian act enforced by the government or other people in favour of it, in order to pursue personal interest, just as like the atrocities practiced by Nazi regime. In other words, it can be baptized to attain political gains. Others hold that some procedures which prospective parents employ such as Pre-implantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD) with embryo testing and subsequent acts of donation or disposal of unwanted embryo are unethical cases. Fortunately, it finds its favour especially when its aim is directed towards reducing undesirable traits such as genetic diseases, or to increase desirable ones, such as athletic ability or effective immune systems or intelligence. Majority of people think that only the later counts as Eugenics. However, Eugenics is divided into two different categories; Positive and Negative Eugenics.

1.2.1 Positive and Negative Eugenics

The distinction between positive and negative eugenics basically comes out clearly. Historically, positive eugenics has been defined as an effort that aims at increasing desired traits whereas negative eugenics is an effort that attempts at decreasing undesired traits. In the critical analysis, one must realize that positive eugenics measures have always included promoting healthy and high achieving people to have many children. This is done through introducing institutions and polices that favour marriages and family life for such category of people. It has been done also through introducing sperm bank where sperms of those considered to be of good traits such as intelligence are kept. On the other side of Negative Eugenics, measures have been put into place such as immigration restriction based on discouraging undesired traits, race, nationality, religion and ethnicity. They have also prohibited marriages and reproduction of those with unwanted traits through sexual segregation, sterilization, Abortion and euthanasia. While Positive Eugenics seems to have been accepted throughout the history due to its association with choice, consent and much more its non-coercion nature, Negative Eugenics finds opposition because of past experiences such as Nazi horrors, selective abortion, and its coercion nature from those propagate it.[6]

1.3 Ethical Arguments against Eugenics

1.3.1 Argument from Respect to Human Life

The aim to improve human gene pool has been historically pursued through ways that are unsound which do not respect human life. For instance, Nazis eugenics that used compulsory sterilization and mass murder to eliminate people whose ethnicities deemed to be unfit in German. This attempt to improve gene pool was unclean and did not render respect to human life.

1.3.2 Argument from Coercion

It is against human rights for the government or any institution to compel or coerce anyone’s reproductive behaviour. It is within international law for one to reproduce without interference from the third party. Nevertheless, the effort to improve genetic makeup such as avoiding disease should never involve force.[7] Coercion goes against one’s consent and therefore, it is unethical act and morally objectionable.

1.3.3 Argument from Equal Value Principle

The principle states that we ought to value disables and non-disables equally. Selective reproduction program such as Pre-Implantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD- is a technique that enables people with a specific inherited condition in their family to avoid passing it on to their children. It involves checking the genes of embryos created) stands questioned in case of this principle. In such program PGD tries to reduce the chances of having children with disabilities. The question is, if this principle values the disables and non-disables equally, why should one try to avoid getting a child with disabilities? Again, how genuine is this principle? Because if not, then selective reproduction becomes reasonable.[8]

1.3.4 Argument from Harmful Consequences

In the cases where selective reproduction is exercised in order to reduce disabilities and diseases might bring forth harmful consequences to those already living with such problems. For instance, if the number of people born with disabilities is reduced, then those who remain with disabilities would experience stigma due to less acceptance. This is because, they would look unusual and alien to those who are non-Disabled. Another harmful consequence is that, in the societies with fewer number of disables, government resources might be restricted in those places hence becoming disadvantageous to the disabled family.

1.3.5 Argument from Homogeneity

The only purpose of eugenics is to improve human qualities. It encourages parents to choose genetic makeup of their children which subsequently may leads to creation of genetic overclass with unfair advantages over those parents who don’t attempt or those who cannot afford biological disposition that allows such genetic makeup. This also may lead to the formation of homogeneous society where diversity has no place.

1.3.6 Argument from Expressivist Argument

Expressivist argument handles the message that selective reproduction sends to both disable and non-Disable. Does it mean that the world would be a better place to be if it were free from disabled people? Or does the message of selective reproduction say to the disabled that the world would have been happier if their mothers could not have conceived them?  If the answer is YES, then the message is clearly false and morally horrific. The proponents of selective reproduction hold that, less limitation makes everyone better in life and therefore, the world would be a better place if the whole human race were happier.[9] All in all, the message to choose against disabilities remains the same if one holds that the world would be a better place to be if they had not been born.

Conclusion

Eugenics has been understood as an attempt to create perfect and a supper human being via eliminating the unhealth ones from societies as well as upholding those with desirable traits. Eugenics arose through biological proofs that individuals derive their character mostly from inheritance and therefore, much has been associated with it such as horrors of Nazi regime. The history of 20^th century tells that the horrible measures that were committed in the name of race hygiene via coercive policies imposed by the governments, have clearly indicated that eugenics goals can the achieved through force and thus establishing difficulties for any form of eugenics to be accepted and pursued by the society of today.  Nevertheless, today technology is everywhere and any effort to change genetic makeup of a group or population requires the participation of the third party. This include personal reproduction choices of couples. In some countries such as China where population has gone to the “extremes”, coercive policies might be put into place in order to restrict any family from having more than one child. In other countries such as Spain where population has gone down, the government may establish measures of encouraging people to give birth such as promising free education from elementary to university. Therefore, the history tells us also that eugenics can also aim at encouraging or discouraging population.

Eugenic is also practiced in some of our communities in Africa. Some communities do not allow their members to marry from a community that is known to possess undesirable characters. It is believed that if one dares to marry a woman of “bad character,” then the gene of that woman might affect the next generation of the society in consideration. The history tells us that in the Kikuyu community in Kenya, the marginalized new born were not allowed to continue subsisting. They were regarded misfits and bearer of misfortunes and curse in the family. Therefore, they were taken to the forest to die or to be consumed by the wild animals.

Now coming to the fundamental question whether eugenics is good or bad, becomes the matter of purpose and procedure. If eugenics aims at eliminating diseases associated with gene makeup and if and only proper method of doing that is applied such as introducing immunity to the fetus in the womb of the mother so that the baby is born with good health, then eugenics becomes plausible. But if eugenic aims at improving gene makeup via assassination, mass murder, abortion, euthanasia, making the group with undesired traits infertile or discouraging them from giving birth, then, eugenic becomes questionable or horrible. 

Sources

Books

Galton Francis, “Essays in Eugenics.” London: The Eugenics   Education Society, 1909.

Wilkinson Stephen and Eva Garrard, Eugenics and Ethics of Selective Reproduction. Keele: Keele University, 2013.

Internet Sources

Brumbaugh Robert, “Plato’s Genetic Theory.” https://academic.oup.com/jhered/article-abstract/45/4/191/796907?redirectedFrom=PDF , accessed on 29/8/2018.

Friedl Sarah, “Positive & Negative Eugenics: Ethical Implication.” https://study.com/academy/lesson/positive-negative-eugenics-ethical-implications.html, Retrieved on 30/8/2018.

University of San Diego Biology 494 Students, “Genetics Generation.” http://knowgenetics.org/history-of-eugenics/, retrieved on 30/8/2018.

History.com Staff, “Eugenics.” https://www.history.com/topics/eugenics, Accessed on 30/8/2018.

Robert Wilson, “Eugenics: positive vs negative.” http://eugenicsarchive.ca/discover/connections/5233c3ac5c2ec50000000086, retrieved August 30, 2018.

Aultman Julie, “ Eugenomics: Eugenics and Ethics in 21^st Century.” https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1186%2F1746-5354-2-2-28.pdf, Retrieved on 31/8/2018

---

[1] Robert Brumbaugh, “Plato’s Genetic Theory.” https://academic.oup.com/jhered/article-abstract/45/4/191/796907?redirectedFrom=PDF , accessed on 29/8/2018.

[2] Sarah Friedl, “Positive & Negative Eugenics: Ethical Implication.” https://study.com/academy/lesson/positive-negative-eugenics-ethical-implications.html, Retrieved on 30/8/2018.

[3] Francis Galton, “Essays in Eugenics.” (London: The Eugenics Education Society, 1909) 35

[4] University of San Diego Biology 494 Students, “Genetics Generation.” http://knowgenetics.org/history-of-eugenics/, retrieved on 30/8/2018.

[5] History.com Staff, “Eugenics.” https://www.history.com/topics/eugenics, Accessed on 30/8/2018.

[6] Robert Wilson, “Eugenics: positive vs negative.” http://eugenicsarchive.ca/discover/connections/5233c3ac5c2ec50000000086, retrieved August 30, 2018.

[7] Julie Aultman, “ Eugenomics: Eugenics and Ethics in 21^st Century.” https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1186%2F1746-5354-2-2-28.pdf, Retrieved on 31/8/2018

[8] Stephen Wilkinson and Eva Garrard, Eugenics and Ethics of Selective Reproduction. (Keele: Keele University, 2013), 12

[9] Ibid, 13