In the early to middle 20th century quite a lot of western countries had eugenics programs of one kind or another. Those deemed ‘defective’ where sterilised for the good of society.
Now those programs are regarded with horror ( rightly in my mind ).
Is this an example in the modern world?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3189763.stm
Or something else?
As the head of the programme points out, it is voluntary only.
However, when you offer cash to someone obviously not in what one most would call a “sound state of mind” then the question of exploitation does arise.
Personally, as long as the treatment is temporary then I have no qualms. However, pressuring a young addict to get sterilized for life is a different ball game, to use a rather unfortunate turn of phrase. Any hint of resistance to solely temporary measures would, in my view, suggest a darker agenda.
First, the government isn’t running it, so it’s not as bad as it could be. However, I could see some dimwitted yahoo needing votes trying to get it enacted as a policy.
We can only hope that, if that is the case, better-educated heads will prevail.
Isn’t terminated pregnancies tested positive for genetic anomalies(like Tay Sachs and Muscular Dystrophy) considered Eugenics?
Why? Either the people are in sound body and mind, meaning that it’s between them and the providers if they get sterilized, or they’re not, at which point they shouldn’t be breeding. Anyway, how can we presume a group of people not competent by default?
Well, as long as you don’t work on any families named…
What?
The Star Trek reference is cliched and too expected?
Oh. Well, never mind, then.
Absolutely not. First, children born with Tay Sachs die by the age of 6 and therefore would not contribute to the gene pool. Secondly, getting rid of the homozygotes of Tay Sachs (or for that matter any recessive disease, like cystic fibrosis, sickle cell anemia, Canavan’s, Gaucher’s, etc. etc.) does next to nothing to change the allelic frequency in the population. For instance, around 1:3700 have phenotypic cystic fibrosis, while 3% of white people carry the gene (higher in Ashkenazim and certain other populations). To limit the disease, you need to decrease the 3% of people who carry the gene, not the 1 in 3700 who have the disease.
Duchenne and Becker MD are both X-linked recessive, so that a far greater percentage of people who carry an allele show the disease. Still, it wouldn’t matter. I can’t think that children afflicted by DMD (Jerry’s Kids) will be passing much on to their offspring. It is an evolutionary dead end, and is passed on solely through the female carriers, so a eugenics program would have to identify and sterilize the unaffected sisters (and mothers) of DMD kids.
A disease like BMD is another bag of chips. Prenatal screening and selection for BMD would be a dicey proposition. The Ashkenazi community has faced a similar dilemma with prenatal Gaucher Disease testing. Although it isn’t a pleasant diagnosis, BMD people only start showing symptoms in their 30s and 40s, and can live out quite a productive life. So the argument that it is worthy of routine prenatal diagnosis and intervention is a bit, erm, controversial in the genetics world.
It wouldn’t be eugenics if they also offered it to all drug users, including alcohol and tobacco users. Cigarrette smoking is the leading cause of miscarriages and small birth weight babies. Try and tell that to a pro-tobacco anti-abortion Christian fascist like Jesse Helms. It might blow his circuits.
Saying that those of unsound mind should not breed is the entire foundation of eugenics.
I am all for preventing unwanted preganancy during a period of addiction. Bribing impressionable and vulnerable young minds to remove themselves from the gene pool permanently should proceed only under exceptional scrutiny, if at all.
The thing about eugenics movements in the past is that they where often used for social control rather than some great aim of improving the human genepool. Note the comments on women of “mixed racial quality” in the link below which refers to the Swedish example.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/background_briefings/international/290661.stm
It seems to me that an addict in need of a fix is very much “not in sound mind”. Giving money in exchange for perminant sterilisation, which that individual may regret very greatly if they later recover is really quite unpleasant.
I’m also quite disturbed my the numbers quoted, why are the over 1000 women but less than 30 men.
But how do you decide the difference between a fully legal contract and bribing the impressionable?
What’s the deal with the gene-pool here. Is this about a future society being more healthy (didn’t know smoking crack was hereditary). Or is it maybe more about a child growing up in a desperate environment?
How about handing out condoms for free?
Tubal ligation is not the only thing offered these women. The statistics in the article linked show a spread of ethnicities, so we can’t claim they’re only targeting the blacks or something. We can say that those in poverty are most likely to be attracted to this, but on the other hand, the number of people who would get paid for birth control (take a look at the flyer in the link: norplant, DP) is considerably larger than just poor people.
The woman’s point raised in the article is interesting: “It’s just nonsense. Nobody is forcing these people to do anything - it’s their own decision. What infuriates me is that if my critics don’t think these people are capable of making their mind up on an issue like this, why on earth do they think they are capable of bringing up a child?” I think that’s a fair question. But then adoption might be raised, assuming these people are responsible enough to obtain necessary prenatal care and obstain from drug use during pregnancy. However, if they could obstain from drug use, they wouldn’t be addicts. So, to reiterate, she makes a good point.
And to reiterate, sterilization is not the only thing offered. It must simply be long-term birth control.
I can’t see this as an issue even comparable to eugenics, honestly.
The problem with eugenics is that is presumes the judgments of the people running the program match some absolute concept of what’s worthy of existing and what isn’t.
If we limited ourselves to what our own ideas said were useful, the entire world – human culture, human biodiversity, natural biodiversity, everything – would quickly be reduced to a single steady state that would probably not survive for very long.
When something doesn’t match our ideas of what’s valuable, there are two possibilities: it really isn’t valuable, or our ideas are wrong. People in favor of eugenics often choose not to recognize that second possibility.
Your second point is true regardless of addiction, and your first makes a few assumptions that I don’t think you’ve brought to light. Someone unable to reasonably choose permanent birth control is surely not prepared to have a child, and in any event, sterilization is not the only service offered. It helps spin the issue, but it is not factually complete.
There are not really any comparable forms of birth control for men is likely the reason. Condoms must be used for each sex act, while IUDs or implants are effective for long periods of time.
People who think this is eugenics seem to think than an addict is not able to make a competant decision like:
“Should I accept this offer?”
“If yes, should I accept a permanent or temporary method of birth control?”
“What are the long term consequences of my actions.”
Yet that same person (who isn’t offered the birth control option) can make decisions like:
“I’m pregnant. Should I have an abortion or raise the child?”
“How can I get help to stay off drugs during my pregnancy?”
“Now that I have a baby, should I leave him alone for the evening while I get my fix, or take him with me to a crack den?”
If that person is really incompetant to make decisions, than they certainly shouldn’t have children during that period of incompetancy. So methods like IUDs, depo etc. are perfectly appropriate. I have no problem with permantent sterilization either, as long as the addict is given a choice.