Introduction
Eugenics has become somewhat of a buzzword in mainstream discussions of the topic. As with most buzzwords, it is overused to the point of overshadowing broader applications of the topic (For an example see Peter Singer on Animal Rights pp. 196-203). Notwithstanding, this paper will discuss heavily the topic of Eugenics, and more specifically Julian Savulescu’s stand on Eugenics and whether he believes in endorsing a program of eugenics. Savulescu’s opinion will be analyzed mostly by his work included in Munson pp.294. It will be assumed and theoretical in this paper that modern genetic technology is widely available and a program of eugenics is possible to be implemented without limitations on costs.
Eugenics
Defining Eugenics …show more content…
272. Dobzhansky claims, in essence that we are no longer ruled by natural selection and have the power to artificially select genetic “destiny” through modern techniques for genetic manipulation. These include Prenatal Genetic Diagnosis (PGD) which leads to embryo selection by artificial insemination or in vitro fertilization, and selective abortion pp. 267- 270. These techniques aim to create a zygote to be implanted in a female to become a fetus. Through these processes, it is possible to create a child that has the genetic characteristics required. It follows that certain genetic characteristics predisposes the child to certain physical traits, disorders and diseases. Using these techniques there are two options of manipulation: removing detrimental traits, and adding beneficial traits. This splits eugenics into negative and positive eugenics, respectively. Munson briefly discusses the case in which we aim to add detrimental traits or remove beneficial traits. These two are seen as unethical by the two main normative ethical theories and therefore have no merit to discussing. It is worth discussing that supporters of eugenics argue about the lasting benefits for the population as a whole, not at an individual …show more content…
This means a decrease in the frequency of genetic diseases in the population. A program for negative eugenics might call for a genetic screening for known diseases by law. After this, the couple may be discouraged from having the child and given a penalty for carrying out with birthing the child. This is most likely to only apply to those who are carrying out artificial insemination or in vitro fertilization. These programs may incentivize aborting fetuses with a predisposition for certain traits. These incentives could be paying for the abortion or financial rewards. At the far end of negative eugenics, it may call to sterilize those with a high frequency of detrimental genetic characteristics that may affect that person’s children. Those against negative eugenics tend to question the extent of effects of a program. For example, it is estimated that, on average, a person carriers genetics traits for five recessive diseases pp. 275. Recessive diseases are only expressed in the homozygous case and require both parents to have those genetic traits. Because of the high initial frequency of these genetic traits, it may too difficult to get rid of recessive diseases. Moreover, most genetic diseases are recessive. Because of this, methods used in negative eugenics have a more pertinent effect on an individual basis rather than that of an entire population. Therefore, a nation-wide
Eugenics has become somewhat of a buzzword in mainstream discussions of the topic. As with most buzzwords, it is overused to the point of overshadowing broader applications of the topic (For an example see Peter Singer on Animal Rights pp. 196-203). Notwithstanding, this paper will discuss heavily the topic of Eugenics, and more specifically Julian Savulescu’s stand on Eugenics and whether he believes in endorsing a program of eugenics. Savulescu’s opinion will be analyzed mostly by his work included in Munson pp.294. It will be assumed and theoretical in this paper that modern genetic technology is widely available and a program of eugenics is possible to be implemented without limitations on costs.
Eugenics
Defining Eugenics …show more content…
272. Dobzhansky claims, in essence that we are no longer ruled by natural selection and have the power to artificially select genetic “destiny” through modern techniques for genetic manipulation. These include Prenatal Genetic Diagnosis (PGD) which leads to embryo selection by artificial insemination or in vitro fertilization, and selective abortion pp. 267- 270. These techniques aim to create a zygote to be implanted in a female to become a fetus. Through these processes, it is possible to create a child that has the genetic characteristics required. It follows that certain genetic characteristics predisposes the child to certain physical traits, disorders and diseases. Using these techniques there are two options of manipulation: removing detrimental traits, and adding beneficial traits. This splits eugenics into negative and positive eugenics, respectively. Munson briefly discusses the case in which we aim to add detrimental traits or remove beneficial traits. These two are seen as unethical by the two main normative ethical theories and therefore have no merit to discussing. It is worth discussing that supporters of eugenics argue about the lasting benefits for the population as a whole, not at an individual …show more content…
This means a decrease in the frequency of genetic diseases in the population. A program for negative eugenics might call for a genetic screening for known diseases by law. After this, the couple may be discouraged from having the child and given a penalty for carrying out with birthing the child. This is most likely to only apply to those who are carrying out artificial insemination or in vitro fertilization. These programs may incentivize aborting fetuses with a predisposition for certain traits. These incentives could be paying for the abortion or financial rewards. At the far end of negative eugenics, it may call to sterilize those with a high frequency of detrimental genetic characteristics that may affect that person’s children. Those against negative eugenics tend to question the extent of effects of a program. For example, it is estimated that, on average, a person carriers genetics traits for five recessive diseases pp. 275. Recessive diseases are only expressed in the homozygous case and require both parents to have those genetic traits. Because of the high initial frequency of these genetic traits, it may too difficult to get rid of recessive diseases. Moreover, most genetic diseases are recessive. Because of this, methods used in negative eugenics have a more pertinent effect on an individual basis rather than that of an entire population. Therefore, a nation-wide